PRINCETON,    N.    J.  ^ 


S/ie//.. 


Division . .  JU  .^ .  ^  .0.*D  O^ 

Seaion n^.f...V3.0 

Number 


THE 


DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS 


In  the  Light  of  the  Latest  Criticism. 


SAMUEL    IVES'^CURTJSS, 


Professor  in  Chicago  Theological  Seminary. 


CHICAGO  : 

F.  H.  revell,  148  and  150MADISON  street. 
1881. 


Copyright,   1881, 

BY 

F.  H.   Revell. 


PREFACE. 

The  following  review  of  Judge  Waite's  book 
indicates  the  opinions  of  leading  New  Testatment 
critics  of  almost  every  shade  of  religious  belief 
with  reference  to  the  origin  of  the  Gospels.  On 
the  one  side  is  a  lawyer,  who  late  in  life  gave 
attention  to  these  studies;  on  the  other  are  men 
who  have  enjoyed  every  advantage  for  preparation 
in  New  Testament  criticism,  and  who  have  de- 
voted their  lives  to  scientific  investigations  as 
to  the  time  when  the  Gospels  were  composed.  I 
leave  the  candid  reader  to  judge  whether  sciolism 
or  science  is  to  determine  the  question  respect- 
ing the  date  of  the  Evangelic  Records. 

I  have  also  added  a  lecture,  which  is  largely 
based  on  Norton's  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels^  and 
which  is  designed  to  furnish  a  cumulative  argu- 
ment, showing  what  the  admission  that  our  Gospels 
were  written  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second 
century  really  involves. 

I  trust  that  this  little  treatise  may  be  of  some 
help  to  every  one  who  sincerely  desires  to  know 
more  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Gospels,  and  who  is 
not  conversant  with  the  general  literature  of  the 

subject. 

Samuel  Ives  Curtiss. 
Chicago,  March  29,  1881. 


CONTENTS. 


I. 

Review  of  Judge  Waite's  "  History  of  the 
Christian  Religion  to  the  Year  Two 
Hundred.  " 


II. 


When  Were  Our  Gospels  Written? 


PART  FIRST. 

Before  enterins^  upon  the  specific  criticism  of 
this  book,*  some  preliminary  remarks  are  in 
place.  I  presume  all  will  agree  that  there  is 
need  of  a  special  training  for  the  pursuit  of  eveiy 
science,  and  that  the  more  advanced  the  science 
becomes  the  greater  the  necessity  of  such  a  train- 
ing. Before  a  man  can  attain  eminence  in  any 
scientific  department  he  must  have  mastered  all 
the  important  discoveries  in  that  department.  It 
would  obviously  be  absurd  for  a  geologist  to  set 
himself  up  as  an  authority  in  geology  who  should 
be  unfamiliar  with  the  views  of  leading  geologists 
during  the  last  two  decades,  and  who  should  quote 
the  opinions  of  men  in  the  last  century  to  estab- 
lish his  positions,  when  an  examination  of  recent 
authorities  would  have  prevented  him  from  wast- 
ing his  time  to  no  purpose.  Still  there  are  many 
who  are  led  by  curiosity  to  pursue  studies  for 
which  they  are  unprepared  for  want  of  the  right 
training.  Their  love  of  knowledge  is  commend- 
able, and  they  are  deserving  of  praise  so  long  as 
they  recognize  the  incompleteness  of  their  inves- 

*  History  of  tire  Christian  Religion  to]  the    Year 
Two  Hundred.    By  Charles  B.  Waite,  A.  M.    Chicago: 

C.  y.  Waite  &  Co.,  1881. 


2  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

tigations.  But  when  they  attack  established  in- 
stitutions and  claim  to  be  public  teachers,  it  is 
right  to  try  to  convince  them  and  the  public  that 
they  are  not  scientists,  but  sciolists;  and  that  the 
positions  which  they  set  forth  with  so  much  con- 
fidence are  due  to  an  ignorance  of  the  subject. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Biblical  criticism  is 
as  trulj^  a  science  as  that  of  geology  or  anthro- 
pology— a  science  which  has  occupied  the  close 
attention  of  many  untiring  investigators  and  brill- 
iant students  for  the  last  hundred  years.  These 
men  belong  to  all  schools  of  belief.  So  far  as 
they  deserve  the  title  of  scientists,  they  are  char- 
acterized with  an  ardent  love  of  truth.  They 
would  rather  make  an  admission  which  is  un- 
favorable to  them  than  carry  a  point  by  unfair 
means.  Their  opinions  have  been  recorded,  and 
although  there  are  many  differences  among  them, 
it  is  perfectly  possible  to  ascertain  what  the  con- 
sensus of  New  Testament  criticism  is;  for  ex- 
ample, whether  critics  generally  agree  that  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  did  not  arise  before 
tiie  last  quarter  of  the  second  century. 

Now  there  are  certain  prerequisites  which  are 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  pursuit  of  such  an 
investigation.  Since  German  scholars  have  made 
such  extensive  contributions  in  this  department,  a 
familiarity  with  the   German   language  is  abso- 


II^TRODUCTORY.  6 

lufcely  necessary.     To  lack  a  knowledge  of  Grerraan 
is  to  incapacitate  one  for  becoming  a  master  in 
this  department.     This,  however,  is  simply  a  me- 
dium.    It  is  necessary  besides  to  be  familiar  with 
the  principles  of  historical  and  Biblical  criticism. 
Without  it  the  greatest  industry  will  be  misdi- 
rected.     Furthermore,  the  student  must  have  a 
complete  knowledge  of  the  literature  of  the  sub- 
ject, and  of  the  best  authorities.     This  is  the  last 
place  where  mere  numbers  are  decisive.     Not  every 
book  which  may  have  been  written  on  the  subject 
is  an  authority.     The  leaders  in  this  department 
have  as  clear  and  settled  a  reputation  as  the  emi- 
nent astronomers  or  chemists,  but  they  are  per- 
haps less  familiarly  known  to  the  general  public. 
The  last  prerequisite  which  I  notice  is  that  of  a 
judicial   and   unbiased    mind.      The   question   is, 
What  are  the  facts?     These  must  be  understood 
and  weighed   without  regard  to   the  preferences 
of  the  writer. 

I  deem  it  important  to  dwell  upon  these  points, 
not  only  that  the  public  may  see  the  grounds  of 
m.y  criticisms  upon  our  author,  but  also  that  they 
may  be  in  a  position  properly  to  estimate  the  many 
similar  attempts  which  will  be  made  in  this  direc- 
tion. 

Whether  Judge  Waite  would  claim  the  posses- 
sion of  these  prerequisites  I  do  not  know.     The 


4:  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

question  is  not  whether  he  is  an  amiable  gentle- 
man, a  person  of  literary  tastes  and  culture,  and 
of  good  common  sense.  He  may  possess  all  these 
qualities  which  commend  one  to  the  confidence  of 
the  public,  and  yet  be  totally  unfitted  to  examine 
these  questions  and  to  pass  a  judgment  upon  them. 

JUDGE   WAITES   METHOD. 

Now,  without  any  personal  knowledge  of  the 
gentleman,  I  desire  to  point  out  plainly  the  de- 
fects of  this  very  plausible  book — I  call  it  plausi- 
ble because,  without  the  least  heat,  he  would  seem 
to  all  who  are  inclined  to  doubt  to  establish  his 
positions  triumphantly.  And  yet  I  cannot  dis- 
cover a  trace  of  one  of  the  prerequisites  which  I 
have  mentioned.  He  has  not  had  the  required 
training.  He  does  not  seem  to  be  acquainted 
with  German.  He  does  not  know  the  literature  of 
the  subject,  although  he  has  consulted  so  many 
books;  and  in  this  discussion,  however  excellent 
and  impartial  he  may  be  upon  the  bench,  he  does 
not  display  an  unbiased  and  judicial  mind.  In- 
deed he  employs  methods  which  are  in  vogue 
among  advocates  in  making  out  a  case,  or  what 
the  Germans  with  reference  to  Baur  and  the  Tue- 
bingen  school  call  tendencj^-criticism;  that  is,  his 
entire  investigation  is  predetermined  by  a  theory. 
There  is  an  obvious  effort  to  disparage  ail  testi- 
mony offered  on  the  other  side.     This  will  appear 


JUDGE  WAITE  S  METHOD.  5 

farther  on  in  his  treatment  of  the  Apostolic  Fath- 
ers; Eusebius,  the  Canon  of  Miiratori,  etc.,  are  all 
disparaged.  There  seems  to  be  a  tendency,  which 
is  probably  unconscious,  to  withhold  evidence 
which  might  be  prejudicial  to  him. 

Unbelief  is  in  every  case  given  the  benefit  of 
the  doubt.  This  may  be  a  safe  principle  in  crim- 
inal law,  where  it  is  esteemed  better  that  nine 
guilty  men  should  escape  punishment  than  that 
one  innocent  man  should  suffer,  bat  in  a  question 
where  not  only  truth  is  at  stake,  but  especially 
truth  which  concerns  man's  weal  or  woe,  every 
argument  in  favor  of  the  Christian  system  and  its 
charter  must  be  weighed  with  scrupulous  care, 
and  it  seems  to  me  that  these,  rather  than  infidel- 
ity, should  have  the  benefit  of  the  doubt. 

Passing  now  to  an  examination  of  the  author's 
work,  I  wish  to  have  it  understood  in  advance 
that  I  do  not  feel  called  upon  to  controvert,  with 
much  argument,  positions  which  Mr.  Waite  never 
could  or  would  have  taken  if  he  had  been  more 
conversant  with  the  literature  of  this  subject.  I 
refer  here  especially  to  the  evidence  which  he  ad- 
duces for  the  priority  of  certain  Apocryphal  Gos- 
pels (pp.  128-221). 

There  are  three  points  which  he  urges  in  his 
conclusion:  ''No  evidence  is  found  of  the  exist- 
ence in  the  first  century  of  either  of  the  following 


^  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

doctrines :  The  immaculate  conception,  the  miracles 
of  Christ,  His  material  resurrection." 

As  these  doctrines  are  plainly  taught  in  the 
Gospels,  the  author  can  only  establish  his  position 
by  relegating  them  to  the  second  century.  This 
he  seeks  to  do  by  external  and  internal  arguments 
claiming  that  Luke  arose  170  A.  D.;  Mark,  175; 
John,  178,  and  Matthew,  180.  I  need  not  say  that 
scarcely  any  critics  of  eminence  maintain  such  late 
dates,  except  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion, 
who  is  the  inspiration  of  so  many  agnostics  in  this 
country,  and  who  can  scarcly  be  ranked  as  a  critic. 
The  following  is  Hilgenfeld's  criticism  upon  him, 
which  is  all  the  more  significant,  as  he  belongs  to 
the  most  liberal  party  in  Germany:*  "It  cannot 
be  denied  that  the  author  [i.  e.  of  Supernatural 
Religion^}  has  taken  great  pains  to  look  about 
carefully  in  old  and  new  writings.  One  may  also 
thankfully  recognize  many  an  excellent  remark. 
But  the  author  shows  a  similar  partisanship  against, 
as  the  orthodox  show  for  the  traditional  authority 
of  the  Gospels,  and  it  cannot  be  denied  that,  in  many 
respects,  he  has  transcended  the  proper  limit.  *  * 
*  *  Such  conduct  is  not  calculated  to  retain  and 
secure  respect  for  criticism."  The  force  of  these 
strictures  will  appear  when  it  is  known  that  Judge 

*  Zeitschrift  fuer  wissenschaftliche  Theologie,  Leip- 
zig, 1875,  vol.  18,  pp.,  583-584. 


JUDGE  WAITE  S  METHOD.  * 

Waite,  who  is  evidently  influenced  by  Supernatu- 
ral Religion,  but  cannot  for  a  moment  be  com- 
pared with  its  author  in  learning,  has  taken  posi- 
tions which  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion 
is  too  wise  to  urge. 

Let  us  now  begin  our  investigation  of  Jndge 
Waiters  book  with  an  examination  of  the  propo- 
sitions which  he  so  confidently  maintains  in  the 
conclusion,  that  there  is  no  proof  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  immaculate  conception,  of  miracles,  and  of 
Christ's  material  (i.  e.  actual)  resurrection  in  the 
first   century.       Our   author   sets   our   Canonical 
Gospels  entirely  aside  as  too  late  to  have  any  bear- 
ing on  this  question.       What  evidence  does  he 
afford  in   support  of  these  propositions?      None 
whatever.      Either  the   tradition   is   true,  which 
maintains  that  the  Gospels  of  Peter  and  of  Paul 
are  our  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke,  or  it  is  false, 
as  Judge  Waite  claims,  and  these  Gospels  are  lost. 
If  the  tradition  as  to  these  Gospels  is  true,  as  many 
excellent  critics  hold,  then  we  know  these  doctrines 
were  taught,  for  they  are  contained  in  our  Gos- 
pels; but  if  this  tradition  is  false,  then  the  asser- 
tion that  it  cannot  be  proved  that  these  doctrines 
were  held  in  the  first  century  can  be  met  with  the 
counter   assertion   that   it   cannot   he   disproved. 
For  if  the  documents  named  are  not  our  Gospels, 
then  they  are  lost,  we   have   no  clear  record  of 


8  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

what  was  in  them,  and  they  cannot  be  cited  on 
either  side  of  the  question.  In  that  case,  we 
shonkl  have  to  consider  whether  our  Gospels  were 
in  existence  at  that  period.  Although  the  evi- 
dence down  to  a  certain  age  is  not  strong  when 
each  argument  is  examined  singly,  yet  we  shall 
find,  if  we  begin  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second 
centur}^,  and  move  back  into  the  first  century, 
that  the  critical  evidence  for  the  existence  of  the 
Gospels  is  very  strong  up  to  a  certain  point,  and 
that  beyond  that  poinb  the  moral  evidence,  when 
we  combine  all  the  arguments,  is  such  as  to  satisfy 
every  unprejudiced  person.  The  only  reason  why 
scholars  are  so  cautious  in  dealing  with  this  sub- 
ject is  that  unbelievers  practically  claim  that  all 
evidence  which  is  merely  circumstantial  should 
be  excluded.  It  is  asserted  that  if  we  cannot 
trace  the  Gospels  back  earlier  than  the  time  of 
Justin  Martyr  (d.  165)  by  critical  evidence  we 
must  stop  there,  we  may  not  construct  a  cumu- 
lative argument  from  the  circumstantial  evidence 
which  remains,  carrying  us  back  to  the  first  cen- 
tury. Now,  this  course  is  obviously  unfair  where 
men  are  seeking  after  truth.  It  may  be  said  that 
such  circumstantial  evidence  would  not  suffice  to 
establish  a  case  in  court.  Granting  this,  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  does  the  fact  that  there  is  not 
sufficient  les:al  evidence  that  certain  events  took 


DESTRUCTIVE  CRITICISM.  9 

place  disprove  their  actual  occurrence  r"  Have  we 
not  experienced  many  tliino^s  in  our  lives  of  which 
we  miglit  not  be  able  to  furnish  satisfactory  evi- 
dence in  a  court  of  justice?  Have  they,  therefore, 
never  occurred?  Might  not,  however,  the  state- 
ment of  a  citizen,  who  was  a  man  of  veracity  and 
a  public  benefactor,  oe  accepted,  even  in  a  court 
of  justice,  in  regard  to  matters  which  he  could 
prove  only  by  circumstantial  evidence,  when  all 
his  other  testimony  was  fully  established?  Now, 
this  illustrates  the  condition  of  our  argument  in 
tracing  the  history  of  the  Gospels  backward  from 
the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century.  We  have, 
as  I  have  remarked,  a  good  degree  of  certainty  up 
to  a  given  point,  and  beyond  that  a  strong  proba- 
ability. 

DESTRUCTIVE     CRITICISM. 

It  is  customary,  however,  for  the  critics,  in  be- 
ginning with  the  apostolic  age,  to  assail  each  po- 
sition until  they  reach  a  period  where  the  argu- 
ments against  them  are  impregnable.  This  is 
obviously  unfair.  We  cannot  rightfully  expect 
any  quotations  from  the  Apostles  who  may  liave 
been  living  after  the  Gospels  were  written,  since 
each  was  in  possession  of  an  oral  Gospel. 

Descending  to  the  next  period,  that  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers,  it  must  be  remembered  that  it 
was  not   productive.      These  Fathers  were  over- 


10  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

shadowed  by  the  age  that  preceded  them.  They 
have  left  very  few  writings.  Their  minds  were 
impressed  more  with  persons  and  sayings  than 
with  documejits.  They  naturally  tended  to  use 
the  same  Bible  which  Christ  and  his  Apostles  had 
used,  that  is,  the  Old  Testament,  and  while  they 
felt  their  inferiority  to  the  Apostles,  yet,  when 
they  had  occasion  to  quote  the  sayings  and 
doings  of  Christ,  in  an  age  when  manuscripts 
of  the  Gospels  were  not  divided  into  chapters 
and  verses,  they  were  not  likely  to  be  anxiously 
literal  in  their  quotations,  since  they  had  so 
often  heard  the  oral  Gospel,  and  the  written  Gos- 
pels had  been  prepared  rather  for  the  wants  of 
the  future  church  than  for  them.  They  had  no 
occasion  to  quote  the  Gospels  by  the  names  of  the 
different  Evangelists,  for  the  substance  of  the  Gos- 
pel was  already  known  to  the  churches  to  which, 
they  ministered.  Tliey  had  no  special  occasion  for 
emphasizing  the  immaculate  conception,  Christ's 
miracles,  or  the  circumstances  of  his  resurrection. 
If  they  had  laid  special  stress  on  those  things  it 
would  have  been  natural  for  skeptics  to  have 
charged  them  with  originating  these  doctrines. 
Hence  their  allusion  to  these  facts  are  not  at  ail 
inconsistent  with  the  accounts  in  the  Canonical 
Gospels. 


ADMISSIONS.  11 

According  to  Judge  Waiters  own  admission 
"  the  first  allusion  to  the  immaculate  conception 
is  in  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  A.  D.  115."  Does 
not  the  very  fact  that  there  is  merely  an  allusion 
indicate  that  the  immaculate  conception  was  gen- 
erally accepted  as  a  fact  which  needed  no  proof? 
So,  too,  he  says  that  '^  the  first  mention  of  the 
miracles  of  Jesus  was  in  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas, 
A.  D.  71-132."  Does  that  imply  that  the  gospel 
account  of  miracles  had  not  been  previously  in 
existence?  Likewise  he  says  that  the  material 
resurrection  was  taught  by  Justin  Martyr.  On 
the  other  hand  he  seeks  to  prove  that  Paul  in 
holding  the  doctrine  of  a  spiritual  resurrection 
knew  nothing  of  the  facts  of  Christ's  resurrection. 
This  seems  absurd.  For  Paul  had  no  occasion  to 
enter  into  the  particulars  of  Christ's  resurrection. 
The  fact  th^t  he  simply  mentions  that  Christ 
was  raised  does  not  at  all  prove  that  he  did  not 
know  the  manner  as  described  in  the  Gospels. 
Indeed  what  he  says  respecting  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion in  no  way  contradicts  the  narrative  given  in 
the  Gospels,  but  rather  presupposes  it.  Hence  it 
follows  that  the  evidence  which  Judge-  Waite 
adduces  in  support  of  these  three  positions  in 
regard  to  the  immaculate  conception,  miracles, 
and  the  actual  resurrection  of  Christ  is  purely 
negative.     It  fails  to  prove  his  propositions.     It 


12  THE  DATE  OF  OUK  GOSPELS. 

simply  amounts  to  this,  that  there  were  three 
Gospels  in  the  first  century,  which  he  thinks  were 
entirely  different  from  our  first  three  Gospels. 
These  Gospels  are  lost.  Notwithstandina:  our 
ignorance  as  to  their  contents  Judge  Waite  thinks 
that  they  did  not  teach  these  doctrines.  I  need 
not  dwell  upon  the  transparent  weakness  of  such 
an  argument. 

APOCRYPHAL   GOSPELS. 

Our  Canonical  Gospels,  according  to  our  author, 
did  not  exist  in  the  first  century.  He  claims  that 
all  seeming  references  to  them  in  the  Apostolic 
Fathers  are  to  be  explained  away  as  derived  from 
what  the  church  has  designated  Apocryphal  Gos- 
pels, from  which  our  Gospels  in  the  last  quarter 
of  the  second  century  were  derived.  He  says  that 
Marcion  preceded  our  Luke,  and  that  Justin  Mar- 
tyr knew  nothing  of  our  Gospels. »  I  shall  not 
waste  any  ink  or  paper  to  prove  that  the  Prote- 
vangelium,  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  the  Acts  of 
Pilate,  etc.,  in  their  present  forms  as  known  to  us, 
and  as  quoted  by  Judge  Waite,  arose  at  a  later 
period  than  our  Canonical  Gospels.  While  I 
might  be  amused  to  see  into  what  a  trap  he  has 
fallen,  I  feel  a  sincere^  compassion  for  a  man  who 
doubtless  thinks  with  many  others  of  his  admirers 
that  this  is  one  of  the  most  convincing  parts  of 
his  book.      A  knowledge  of  the  original  sources 


LUKE  AND  MARCION.  13 

and  the  literature  of  the  subject  would  have  saved 
him  from  this  pitiful  blunder.  I  simply  refer  to 
Professor  Lipsius's  article  on  the  Aioocryphal  Gos- 
pels,in  Smith  and  Wace's  Dictionary  of  Christian 
Biography^  London,  1880,  vol.  ii,  pp.  700  sq.;  and 
Holtzmann,  Apokryphen  des  Neuen  Testaments ^in. 
Schenkel's  Bibel-Lexikon^  Leipzig,  1869,  vol.  i,  pp, 
170  sq.  As  neither  of  these  articles  are  by  ortho- 
dox men,  or  by  those  who  have  the  slightest  bias 
toward  orthodoxy,  they  are  calculated  to  inspire 
confidence  in  persons  of  every  shade  of  belief  or 
disbelief.  Both  are  authorities;  Meyer's  Konver- 
sat ions-Lex ico7i  says  of  Professor  Lipsius  of  Jena, 
that  he  is  one  of  the  most  eminent  scholars  in 
G-ermany. 

LUKE  AND  MARCION. 

Still  further,  a  knowledge  of  the  course  of  crit- 
icism and  of  the  latest  authorities  would  have 
kept  Judge  Waite  from  claiming  that  Marcion's 
Gospel  preceded  that  of  Luke.  The  opinion  that 
Marcion's  Gospel  was  not  a  Gnostic  recast  of  cur 
Luke's  Gospel,  but  that  Luke's  Gospel  was  derived 
from  Marcion,  was  held  for  a  time  years  ago 
by  some  Germans,  and  more  recently  by  the 
author  of  Supernatural  Religion^  but  the  weight 
of  scholarship  is  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  the 
priority  of  Luke.  Even  the  author  of  Supernat- 
ural Religion  has  been  compelled,  in  the  last  edition 


14  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

of  his  work,  London,  1879,  to  make  the  following 
admission,  which  nullifies  his  entire  argument  as  to 
the  priority  of  Marcion.     He  says  (vol.ii,  p.  138): 

"  In  the  earlier  editions  of  this  work  we  con- 
tended that  the  theory  that  Marcion's  Gospel  was 
a  mutilated  form  of  our  third  Synoptic,  had  not 
been  established,  and  that  more  probably  it  was  an 
earlier  work,  from  which  our  Grospel  might  have 
been  elaborated.  Sin  ce  the  sixth  edition  of  this  work 
was  completed,  however,  a  very  able  examination 
of  Marcion's  Grospel  has  been  made  by  Dr.  San  day 
which  has  convinced  us  that  our  earlier  hypothesis 
is  untenable,  that  the  portions  of  our  third  Syn- 
optic, excluded  from  Marcion's  Grospel,  were  really 
written  by  the  same  pen  which  composed  the  mass 
of  the  work,  and,  consequently,  that  our  third 
Synoptic  existed  in  his  time,  and  was  substantially 
in  the  hands  of  Marcion.'' 

The  hypothesis  which  found  favor  with  Baur 
and  the  Tuebingen  school  thirty-five  years  ago  has 
long  since  been  given  up  in  Germany,  even  by 
Baur  himself  in  the  main.  Ritschl,  who  recorded 
his  adherence  to  the  theory  in  1816,  gave  his  re- 
cantation five  years  later  as  follows:*  "  I  see  that 
the  hj^pothesis  j)ut  forth  by  me,  that  Marcion  did 

*  See  Weiss,  Is^ritiscli  Exegetisches  Handhiich  ueher 
die  Evanyelien  Markus  and  Lukas,  Goettingen,  1878, 
p.  240. 


LUKE  AND  MARCION".  15 

not  change  the  Grospel  of  Luke,  but  that  his  Gospel 
is  a  preliminary  step  to  the  Canonical  Luke,  has 
been  refuted  by  Volkmar  and  Hilgenfeld.  Who- 
ever reflects  upon  the  exceeding  one-sidedness  with 
which  Hahn  has  defended  the  traditional  view  will 
know  how  to  excuse  me  for  being  led  by  him  to 
the  contrary  one-sidedness"  (i.e.  that  the  author  of 
Luke's  Grospel  made  use  of  Marcion's).*  Says  Reuss 
of  Marcion :  "  He  took  his  material  principally  from 
Luke  as  the  least  Judaizing  ^  *  *  i^  f^ct  his 
books  were  castrated  editions  of  single  apostolic 
writings."  And  Hilgenfeld  remarks :f  ''Among 
the  Germans  it  will  not  pass  for  progress  that  he 
[i.  e.,  the  author  of  S.  R.]  is  determined  to  con- 
sider the  Gospel  of  Marcion  as  independent  from 
that  of  Luke."  If  the  author  of  Supernatural 
Beligion  is  compelled  to  yield  this  point.  Judge 
Waite  cannot  any  longer  maintain  his  position 
with  reference  to  Marcion,  except  among  those 
wlio  are  so  ignorant  in  regard  to  the  matter,  or  so 
prejudiced,  that  they  will  not  see. 

*  Compare  Lipsius,  in  Smith  and  Wace's  Dictionary 
of  Christam  Biogra2Jhi/,  Yo\.  ii,  p  115;  Holtzmann,  in 
Schenkel's  Bibel-Lexikon,  vol.  i,  pp.  178-179;  Die 
GesGliiclite  der  Ueiligen  Scliriften  Neuen  Testaments, 
Braunschweig,  1874,  vol.  i,  p.  254, 

t  Zeitsclirift  fiter  WissenscaftlicJ-ie  Theologie,  Leipzig, 
1875,  p.  584,  in  a  criticism  of  the  sixth  edition  of  Super- 
natural Religion. 


16  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

Our  author  has  followed  Supeniattiral  Religion 
in  findiuo  that  Justin  Martyr  does  not  refer  to 
our  Canonical  Gospels. 

This  is  ground  which  has  been  searched  again 
and  again  by  the  most  critical  minds  in  Europe. 
Starting  with  America,  and  with  a  New  Testa- 
ment scholar  who  has  a  distinguished  continental 
reputation,  we  find  Professor  Ezra  Abbot,  D.  D., 
LL.D.,  of  Harvard  College,  in  his  work  on  The 
Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  Boston,  1880, 
maintaining  in  a  masterly  way  that  Justin  Martyr 
used  all  our  Canonical  Gospels.  Crossing  over  to 
England,  we  find  the  same  position  ably  argued 
by  Dr.  Wescott,  on  the  Canon  of  the  New 
Testament,  London,  1875;  by  Sanday,  The  Gos- 
pels in  the  Second  Century^  London,  1876 ;  by 
Dr.  E.  A.  Abbot,  in  the  Encijclopedia  Britan- 
nica,  New  York,  1879,  pp.  816  sq.,  with  some 
qualifications  in  regard  to  John's  Gospel^  which 
are  met  by  our  Professor  Abbot.  Passing  to 
Germany,  and  taking  a  look  at  the  standard  criti- 
cal New  Testament  introductions,  we  find  that 
Bleek,  and  his  editor,  Mangold,  ^  maintain  that 
Justin  Martyr  was  acquainted  with  our  four  Gos- 
pels; that  Reussf   says,  in  regard   to  the  char- 

* Enleitung  in  das  Neue  lestat7nent,Bev\m,  1875,  pp. 
271,  371. 

f  Die  QescMcMe  dor  Heiligen  Schriften  Neuen 
Testaments,  Braunschweig,  1874,  Sec.  294,  rem. 


LUKE  A^D  MARCIOi^.  17 

acter  oi:  his  citations  from  the  Grospels,  that 
they  refer,  so  far  as  we  can  compare  them  with 
our  texts,  mostly  to  Matthew,  but  also  some 
things  which  are  only  found  in  Mark  and  Luke 
are  expressly  cited,  and  the  latter  as  from  the  dis- 
ciple of  an  Apostle;  and  Hilgenfeld  "^  remarks: 
"  Was  in  Justin's  Evangelien  .  .  .  stand,  fuehrt 
bereits  ueber  die  beiden  Evangelien  des  Matthaeus 
nnd  des  Marcus  hinaus.  Es  unterliegt  keinem 
Zweifel  dass  er  auch  das  Lucas-Evan gelium  ge- 
braucht  hat.  Sogar  der  Gebrauch  des  Johannes- 
Evangelium  wird  schwer  abzuweisen  sein."  ''  That 
which  stood  in  Justin's  Gospels  leads  us  out  al- 
ready over  the  two  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  he  also  used  the  Gospel  of 
Luke.  It  will  be  hard  to  deny  even  the  use  of 
John's  Gospel." 

There  can  be  no  question,  then,  that  the  very 
best  critics  in  America,  England  and  Germany,  as 
the  result  of  the  latest  and  most  searching  inves- 
tigations, are  agreed  that  Justin  made  use  of  the 
three  Synoptical  Gospels,  and  that  most  of  them 
recognize,  with  varying  degrees  of  assent,  his  use 
of  John's  Gospel.  Here  again  Judge  Waite,  in 
denying  this  secondary  relation  of  Justin  to  our 
Canonical  Gospels^  builds  upon  the  sand. 

*  Historisch-Kritsche  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Tes- 
tament, Leipzig,  1875,  pp.  66  and  67. 


18  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

EUSEBIUS. 

The  constant  tendency  of  our  author's  book  is 
seen  in  his  treatment  of  the  Fathers  and  of  Euse- 
bius.  Whf'uever  there  is  any  danger  that  their 
testimony  may  cast  a  barrier  in  the  way  of  his 
arguments,  he  seeks  to  disparage  them.  Such  a 
course  may  be  natural  enough  for  one  who  is  ac- 
customed to  the  usages  of  a  court-room^  but  it  is 
carried  to  such  an  extreme,  especially  in  the  case 
of  Eusebius,  as  to  cast  grave  reflections  upon  the 
methods  of  one  who  claims  to  be  seeking  after 
the  truth.  We  look  in  vain  in  any  modern  criti- 
cal works  for  such  a  contemptuous  handling  of 
the  Fathers. 

Grranted  that  they  were  credulous  like  the  men 
of  their  age,  is  all  their  testimony  to  be  rejected 
on  that  account? 

Old  Scaliger,  who  died  in  1609,  is  summoned 
from  his  grave  to  repeat  an  exploded  slander 
against  Eusebius,  that  ''no  writer  has  contributed 
more  to  Christian  history,  and  no  one  is  guilty  of 
more  mistakes."  This  is  but  a  specimen  of  the 
way  in  which  the  Judge  conjures  up  the  shades  of 
the  past  for  the  delectation  of  sciolists,  who  are 
ready  to  discuss  an}^  theme  in  the  heavens  above, 
or  in  the  earth  beneath,  with  the  assurance  that 
they  are  perfectl}^  competent  to  settle  the  ques- 
tion.    But  it  is  absurd  to  quote  these  ancient  au- 


EUSEBIUS.  19 

thorities  when  scholars  in  the  last  decade  have 
made  new  discoveries  in  the  same  fields,  and  can 
speak  with  authority.  I  know  of  no  critics  of  any 
repute,  and  I  have  consulted  many,  who  call  in 
question  the  honest  intent  of  Eusebius'  statements. 
Semisch,  in  Herzog  and  Plitt's  Real  Encyklopaedie,'^ 
in  commenting  on  Eusebius'  silence  with  regard  to 
the  bad  things  in  Constantine's  character,  remarks 
that  his  fault  lay  in  this,  and  not  in  a  material 
falsification  of  them,  and  afterwards  adds:  ''His 
character  for  historical  fidelity  cannot  in  the  main 
be  denied  in  that  which  is  handed  down.^'  The 
following  estimate  of  Ensebius,  by  Bishop  Light- 
foot,  one  of  the  most  careful  English  scholars,  is 
taken  from  Smith  and  Wace's  Didionarij  of  Chris- 
tian Biography ^■\  where,  after  speaking  of  the 
enormous  labor  incurred  in  preparing  the  church 
history  and  defending  him  from  the  asper- 
sions of  Gibbon,  he  says:  ''The  writer  con- 
tents himself  with  condemning  the  sins  and 
shortcomings  of  Christians  [which  Lightfoot 
says  are  denounced  in  no  measured  language] 
in  general  terms  without  entering  into  details, 
and  declares  his  intention  of  confining  him- 
self to  such  topics  as  may  be  profitable  to  his 
own    and    future   generations.      This   treatment 

*  Leipzig,  1879,  vol.  4,  pp.  394-395. 

f  London.  1880,  vol.  2,  p.  324,  sq. 


20  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

may  be  regarded  as  too  great  a  sacrifice  to  edifica- 
tion. It  may  discredit  liis  conception  of  history, 
but  it  leaves  no  imputation  on  his  honesty.  Nor, 
again,  can  the  special  charges  against  his  honor 
as  a  narrator  be  sustained.  There  is  no  ground 
whatever  for  the  surmise  that  Eusebius  forged  or 
interpolated  the  passage  from  Josephus  relating 
to  our  Lord,  quoted  in  H.  E.  i.,  11,  though  Heini- 
chen  (iii.,  p.  623  sq.,  Melet.  ii.)  is  disposed  to  en- 
tertain the  charge.  Inasmuch  as  this  passage  is 
contained  in  all  our  extant  manuscripts,  and  there 
is  sufiicient  evidence  that  other  interpolations 
(though  not  this)  were  introduced  into  the  text  of 
Josephus  long  before  his  time,  no  suspicion  can 
justly  attach  to  Eusebius  himself.  Another  inter- 
polation in  the  Jewish  historian,  which  he  quotes 
elsewhere  (ii.,  23),  was  certainly  known  to  Origen. 
Doubtless,  also,  the  omission  of  the  owl  in  the 
account  of  Herod  Agrippa's  death  (ii.,  10)  was 
already  in  some  texts  of  Josephus  (Ant.  xix.,  8. 2). 
The  manner  in  which  Eusebius  deals  with  his  very 
numerous  quotations  elsewhere,  where  v/e  can  test 
his  honesty,  is  a  sufficient  vindication  against  this 
unjust  charge.  *  *  "*"  J.s  regards  the  canon  of 
Scripture,  indeed,  he  takes  special  imins;  he  lays 
down  certain  principles  ivhich  shall  guide  him  in 
the  production  of  testimonies;  and,  on  the  ivhole,  he 
adheres  to  those  iwinciples  with  fidelityy  [The 
italics  are  mine.] 


FAUSTUS.  21 

I  close  with  the  following  quotations  from  Mey- 
er's Konversafions-Lexikon ;*  "  His  main  work,  the 
Church  History,  written  between  324  and  326, 
contains  a  rich  collection  from  the  public  arch- 
ives, church  libraries,  and  private  collections, 
increased  through  traditions,  inquiries  from  those 
who  had  been  participants  in  that  which  had  taken 
place,  or  which  they  themselves  had  experienced, 
and  although  in  many  respects  wanting  in  criti- 
cism, and  unpartisanship,  and  evenness  of  treat- 
ments, yet  in  general  bearing  the  character  of 
fidelity  and  credibility." 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  when 
Judge  Waite  charges  Eusebius  with  forgeries,  and 
claims  that  his  testimony  ought  not  to  be  taken 
except  as  supported  by  others,  he  is  guilty  of  using 
arguments  which,  in  the  judgment  of  modern 
criticism,  cannot  stand. 

FAUSTUS. 

Judge  Waite  quotes  Faustus,  a  Manichaean,  who 
had  a  discussion  with  Augustine,  which  has  been 
preserved  in  the  writings  of  the  latter,  as  saying: 
"  Besides,  as  v/e  have  proved  again  and  again,  the 
writins^s  are  not  the  production  of  Christ  or  of 
His  Apostles,  but  a  compilation  of  rumors  and  be- 
liefs, made  long  after  their  departure,  by  some 

*  Leipzig,  1875,  vol.  6,  p.  446. 


22  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

obscure  semi- Jews,  not  in  harmony  even  with  one 
another,  and  published  by  them  under  the  name 
of  the  Apostles,  or  of  those  considered  the  fol- 
lowers of  the  Apostles,  so  as  to  give  the  appear- 
ance of  apostolic  authority  to  all  these  blunders 
and  falsehoods."  Our  author  supposes  that  Faus- 
tus  must  have  made  this  boast  good  in  some  of 
his  writings.  But  of  this  there  is  no  evidence. 
He  never  establishes  this  assertion  anywhere,  but 
affirms  that  the  Paraclete  (i.e.,  the  Holy  Grhost) 
teaches  him  what  to  receive  and  what  to  reject. 
Augustine  retaliates  on  him  by  asking  him  what 
proof  he  has  that  Christ  sent  his  Paraclete,  and 
says:  "  You  reply  that  you  find  the  proof  in  the 
Gospel.  You  do  not  accept  the  Gospel,  and  you 
say  that  it  has  been  tampered  with.  Will  you 
first  accuse  your  witness  of  corruption,  and  then 
call  for  his  evidence  ?  To  believe  him  when  you 
wish  it,  and  then  to  disbelieve  him  when  you  wish 
it,  is  to  believe  nobody  but  yourself.  Where, 
then,  will  you  find  the  proof  required  to  show 
that  it  is  from  the  Paraclete  that  you  have  learned 
that  the  Gospels  were  not  written  by  the  Apos- 
tles?" In  another  place  he  is  inclined  to  claim 
that  a  passage  in  Romans  is  spurious  because  Paul 
asserts  that  the  Son  of  God  was  born  of  the  seed 
of  David  according  to  the  flesh.  He  simply  con- 
cedes that  Paul  wrote  the  passage  because  Angus- 


FAUSTUS.  23 

tine  will  not  hear  of  anything  being  spurious  in 
his  writings.     Augustine  responds  to  such  denials 
of  the  genuineness  of  the  Scriptures,  as  follows: 
"  In  your  inability  to  find  a  reason  for  not  receiv- 
ing what  is  written  in  the  New  Testament,  you 
are  obliged,  as  a  last  resource,  to  pretend  that  the 
passages  are  not  genuine.     This  is  the  last  gasp  of 
an  heretic  in  the  clutches  of  truth."'     From  this 
it  is  evident  that  Faustus,  instructed  by  the  Para- 
clete (i.  e.,  the  Holy  Ghost),  as  he  claimed,  rejected 
all  passages  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  which 
were  contrary  to  his  doctrines  as  spurious,  without 
the  slightest  evidence.     This  is  all  the  more  evi- 
dent when  we  go  back  to  Celsus,  who  is  quoted 
by  Origen.     According  to  Judge  Waite,  he  did 
not   write    The  True  Worcl^  in  which  he  refers 
to  the  New  Testament  books,  until  early  in  the 
third   century.      Unfortunately  for   Mr.   Waite, 
however.  Dr.  Keim^  who  belongs  to  the  most  lib- 
eral German  school,  and  who  made  a  very  careful 
investia^ation    of    the     subject,   Celsus'     Wahres 
Wort,  Zurich,  1873,  sets  the  date  in  the  year  177 
or  178  A.  D.;  see  Smith  &  Wace's  Didmiary  of 
Christian  Biograj^hy."^ 

When  pushed  with  arguments  which  he  cannot 
answer  he  does  not,  like  Faustus,  urge  the  spur- 
iousness  of  the  Gospels,  as  he   might  well  have 
*  London,  1877,  vol.  1,  p.  436. 


24  THE  DATE  OF  OUE  GOSPELS. 

clone  if  Judge  Waite's  theory  were  true,  that  they 
were  not  written  before  the  last  quarter  of  the  sec- 
ond century.  His  refuge,  like  that  of  so  many 
skeptics  of  the  present  time,  is  in  interpolations. 
He  is  the  forerunner  of  Judge  Waite  and  his 
compeers,  who  assume  that  the  supernatural  ele- 
ments and  all  the  unpalatable  doctrines  were 
interpolated.  The  following  is  his  charge  and 
Origen's  answer: 

''  Certain  Christian  believers  "^  *  "^  have 
corrupted  the  Gospel  from  its  original  integrity, 
to  a  three-fold,  and  four-fold,  and  many-fold  de- 
gree, and  have  remodeled  it,  so  that  they  might 
be  able  to  answer  objections." 

To  this  Origen  replies:  "Now  I  know  of  no 
others  who  have  altered  the  Gospel  save  the  fol- 
lowers of  Marcion,  and  those  of  Valentinus,  and 
I  think,  also,  those  of  Lucian.  But  such  an  alle- 
gation is  no  charge  against  the  Christians^  but 
against  those  who  dared  to  trifle  with  the  Gospel." 

Taking  the  quotation  from  Faustus  in  connec- 
tion with  that  of  Celsus,  it  will  be  seen  that  their 
charges  of  forgery  and  interpolation  rest  on  mere 
assertions,  and  apply  to  those  parts  of  the  New 
Testament  which  they  do  not  like. 

THE  OLD  YERSIOJ^S. 

A  further  illustration  of  Judge  Waite's  ten- 
dency-criticism  is  seen   in   the    date    which   he 


MURATORIAN  FRAGMENT.  25 

assigns  to  the  old  \^ersions.  He  says  (p.  304): 
"  The  four  Gospels  were  written  in  Greek,  and 
there  was  no  translation  of  them  into  other 
languages  earlier  than  the  third  century." 
The  best  and  latest  authorities  assign  the  old 
Latin  version  to  about  the  middle,  or  not 
later  than  the  end  of  the  second  century. 
Hilgenfeld  says  the  New  Testament  was  trans- 
lated into  Latin  in  the  second  century.  Wescott 
assigns  the  date  of  that  translation  to  the  year 
ITO  A.  D.  Bleek,  Tregelles,  Scrivener,  Sanday, 
all  assign  it  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 
Roensch  holds  that  it  could  not  have  been  made 
later  than  200  A.  D.  Of  course  these  dates  are 
very  unfavorable  to  his  hypothesis  that  the  Gos- 
pels first  arose  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second 
century. 

MURATORIAN    FRAGMENT. 

Another  illustration  of  the  unvarying  tendency 
of  our  author's  argument  is  in  his  attitude  toward 
the  Muratorian  fragment,  respecting  which,  after 
speakins:  very  depreciatingly  of  it,  he  sa3's:  "It 
is  supposed  by  some  to  have  been  written  in  the 
second  century.  =i^  *  *  There  are  eminent 
critics,  however,  who  hold  that  the  orisjinal  was 
not  written  earlier  than  the  third  century.  The 
document  itself,  a  production  of  about  the  eighth 
century,  cannot  be  loolted  upon  as  a  very  satis- 


26  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

factory  evidence  of  the  condition  of  the  church 
in  the  second  century."  Now,  the  fact  is  that 
the  most  eminent  New  Testament  scholars  in 
America,  England,  and  Germany,  with  a  few  ex- 
ceptions, hold  that  the  Muratorian  fragment  was 
written  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century 
(most  setting  the  date  at  about  170-180  A.  D.) 
Some  of  them  are:  Professor  Ezra  Abbot,  of 
Harvard  College;  Dr.  E.  A.  Abbott,  Canon  Wes- 
cott,  W.  A.  Sanday,  Credner,  Wieseler,  Bleek, 
Reuss,  Hilgenfeld,  and  man}^  others. 

Even  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  has 
to  admit  that  the  mass  of  critics,  thirty-two  in  all, 
are  against  him,  while  only  eight  can  be  found 
who  assign  a  later  date,  and  these,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Donaldson,  merely  hold  that  the  fragment 
dates  from  the  end  of  the  second  or  beginning  of 
the  third  century.  This  is  a  case  where  the  author 
of  Supernatural  Religion  and  Judge  Waite  show 
that  they  "have  few  equals  in  their  power  of  re- 
sisting evidence  opposed  to  their  prejudices." — Pro- 
fessor Abbot.  In  view  of  the  investigations  of 
the  most  distinguished  scholars,  the  Muratorian 
fragment  is  a  'very  important  witness  for  the 
canonical  character  of  our  Gospels  in  the  last 
quarter  of  the  second  century. 

THE    MANUSCRIPTS. 

Again,  Judge  Waite  shows  his  bias  and  his 
ignorance  in  regard  to  manuscripts,  when  he  ex- 


THE  MANUSCRIPTS.  27 

presses  liis  surprise  that  no  autographs  of  the 
Grospeis  have  come  down  to  us,  and  that  none  of 
the  existing  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels  date  further 
back  than  the  fourth  century.  The  following 
quotations  from  Scrivener's  Introduction  to  the 
Criticism  of  the  New  Testament^^^  will  tend  to  set 
this  matter  in  its  true  light: 

"As  the  New  Testament  far  surpasses  all  other 
remains  of  antiquity  in  value  and  interest,  so  are 
the  copies  of  it  yet  existing  in  manuscript,  and 
dating  from  the  fourth  century  of  our  era  down- 
ward, far  more  numerous  than  those  of  the  most 
celebrated  writers  of  Grreece  or  Rome.  Such  as 
have  been  already  discovered  and  set  down  in  cata- 
logues are  hardly  fewer  than  2,000;  and  many  more 
still  linger  unknown  in  the  monastic  libraries  of  the 
East.  Or  the  other  hand,  manuscripts  of  the 
most  illustrious  classic  poets  and  philosophers  are 
far  rarer  and  comparatively  modern.  We  have  no 
complete  copy  of  Homer  himself  prior  to  the 
thirteenth  century,  though  some  considerable 
fragments  have  been  recently  brought  to  light 
which  may  plausibly  be  assigned  to  the  fifth  cen- 
tury; while  more  than  one  work  of  high  and 
deserved  repute  has  been  preserved  to  our  times  in 
only  a  single  copy." 
The  following  remark  is  made  in  Smithes  Dic- 

*  Cambridge,  1874,  pp.  3-4. 


28  THE  DATE  OP  OUR  GOSPELS. 

tionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  BiograpJnj  and 
Mythology ^"^  in  regard  to  the  manuscripts  of  Livj's 
( b.  59,  B.C.  d.  17  A.  D.)  History:  '^  No  manuscript 
of  Livy  has  yet  been  discovered  containing  all  the 
books  now  extant.  ^  *  *  =i^  Of  the  first  and 
third  decades  we  have  manuscripts  as  old  as  the 
tenth  century;  those  of  the  fourth  [decade]  do  not 
ascend  higher  than  the  fifteenth  century."  And 
Max  Mueller,  in  his  Lectures  on  the  Origin  and 
Growth  ofBeligion.;\  states  that  "  but  few  Sanskrit 
manuscripts  are  older  than  1000  A.  D." 

MANUSCRIPTS  OF  THE   i^EW  TESTAilEN"!. 

When  we  consider  that  the  earliest  copies  of 
the  New  Testament  may  have  been  written  on  the 
perishable  papyrus,  which  was  chiefly  employed 
for  ordinary  purposes  in  the  first  century]:  we  need 
not  be  surprised  that  the  sacred  autographs  have 
perished.  Indeed,  when  we  remember  that  a  por- 
tion of  the  precious  Sinaitic  Dianuscript  was  con- 
signed to  a  waste-basket  as  useless  by  the  ignorant 
monks  of  St.  Catharine,  who  had  previously  burned 
two  baskets  full  of  bits  of  old  manuscripts,  and 
was  only  rescued  by  Tischendorf's  timely  visit,  it 

*  Boston,  1870,  vol.  2.  p.  795. 
t  :N'ew  York,  1873,  p.  148. 
X  See  Scrivener,  pp.  23-24. 


CHRIST  AND  KRISH2!5^A.  2D 

need  not  surprise  lis  that  we   have  so  few  very 
ancient  manuscripts  of  the  Scriptures. 

CHRIST   AN^D    KRISHJS'A. 

Before  leaving  the  subject  of  the  external  evi- 
dences adduced  by  Judge  Waite  in  proof  of  his 
position  that  the  Gospels  were  not  written  before 
the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century,  I  should 
perhaps  notice  the  striking  parallels  which  are 
drawn  between  Christ  as  portrayed  in  the 
existing  Gospels  of  the  Infancy  and  the  account 
of  Krishna  in  the  Bhagavat  Purana.  Before 
discussing  this  subject  I  wish  to  have  it  un- 
derstood that,  to  my  mind,  it  is  no  impeach- 
ment of  the  truths  of  the  Bible  that  we 
find  traditions  of  the  creation,  the  fall,  and 
the  deluge  which,  even  in  their  grotesque  forms, 
reminds  us  of  the  accounts  in  Genesis,  and 
which  may  be  reminiscences  from  one  ancestral 
house.  The  fact  that  other  nations  besides  the 
Hebrews  confessed  their  sins  and  sought  forgive- 
ness does  not  disprove  the  divine  nature  of  that 
doctrine.  David  is  not  less  inspired  because  we 
find  in  the  Chaldean  literature  passages  which  re- 
mind us  of  the  penitential  psalms.  Lenormant 
gives  the  following  :* 
"  God,  who  knowest  that  which  is  secret,  be  gracious. 

^Bie  Magie    iind  WaJirsagekunst  der  Chaldaei; -pp. 
66-67. 


THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

Goddess,  who  knowest  that  which  is  secret,  be  gra- 
cious. 

0  my  God,  my  sins  are  seven  times  seven,  forgive  my 
sins. 

O  my  Goddess,  my  sins  are  seven  times  seven,  forgive 
my  sins." 

These  are  only  ''some  solitary  fragments  of 
pure  gold  from  a  heap  of  rubbish.'' — Max  Mueller. 
But  the  parallels  between  Christ  and  Krishna  have 
evidently  risen  in  a  different  way.  Either  the 
Gospels  of  the  Infancy  have  borrowed  certain  ele- 
ments from  the  account  of  Krishna,  in  the  Bhag- 
avat  Purana^  as  Judge  Waite  claims,  or  the 
Bhagavat  Purana  has  borrowed  from  iVpocryphal 
Gospels. 

Now,  unless  it  can  be  shown,  beyond  the  shadow 
of  a  doubt,  that  the  Bhagavat  Purana,  in  its 
present  form,  has  essentially  the  same  form  as  it 
had  before  the  Gospels  of  the  Infancy  appeared, 
Judge  Waiters  claim,  and  that  of  all  his  kith  and 
kin,  breaks  down. 

But  Judge  Waite  cannot  establish  his  position; 
he  adduces  Colonel  Kennedy,  Avho,  in  the  quota- 
tion given,  simply  argues  the  matter  as  a  question 
of  probabilities.  Mr.  Wilson,  in  The  Vishnu 
Purana,'^  says:  "The  inference  deduced  from 
the  discrepancy  between  the  actual  form  and 
the    older    definition    of    a     Purana,    unfavora- 

*  London,  1840,  p.  0. 


CHRIST  AND  KRISHNA.  31 

ble  to  the  antiquitj^  of  the  extant  works- 
generally,  is  converted  into  certainty  when  we 
come  to  examine  them  in  detail;  for  although  they 
have  no  dates  attached  to  them,  yet  circumstances 
are  sometimes  mentioned  or  alluded  to,  or  refer- 
ences to  authorities  are  made,  or  legends  are  nar- 
rated, or  places  are  particularized,  of  which  the 
comparatively  recent  date  is  indisputable,  and 
which  enforce  a  corresponding  reduction  (»f  the 
antiquity  of  the  work  in  which  they  are  discov- 
ered." Unless  ese  thino-s  can  be  satisfactorily 
explained,  and  it  can  be  proved  that  the  Puranas 
have  not  received  any  modern  elements  siiice  the 
Christian  era.  Judge  Waite's  assumption,  as  I  have 
stated,  must  fall  to  the  ground.  All  the  authori- 
ties accessible  to  me  corroborate  the  above  state- 
ment in  regard  to  the  comparatively  recent  origin 
of  the  Puranas.  Max  Mueller,  in  his  Chips  from  a 
German  Worksliop^^  says: 

'''  What  is  commonly  called  Hindu  mythology 
is  of  little  or  no  avail  for  comparative  pur- 
poses. The  stories  of  Siva  *  *  *  *  Krishna, 
etc.,  are  of  late  growth,  indigenous  to  India,  and 
full  of  wild  and  fanciful  conceptions.  But  while 
this  late  mythology  of  the  Puranas,''  etc.  Again, 
in  his  Lectures  on  the  Origin  and  Groivth  of  Be- 
ligion^fhe  remarks: 

*  Kew  York,  1870,  vol.  2,  p.  75. 
t  XeAv  York,  1879,  p.  149. 


32  THE  DATE  OF  OUK  GOSPELS. 

"  We  must  carefully  distinguish  between  the 
Puranas,  such  as  they  now  exist,  and  the  original 
Purana,  a  recognized  form  of  ancient  tradition. 
*  *  *  "^  Totally  distinct  from  this  are  the 
Puranas.  So  late  as  the  time  of  Gaimini  no  im- 
portance was  attached  to  the  Puranas,  for  he  does 
not  even  refer  to  them  in  his  "System  of  Mi- 
mamsa."* 

The  following  quotation  from  Weber,f  doubtless 
gives  the  prevailing  view  of  German  scholars  as 
to  their  age :  "  The  jealousy  of  the  priestly  families 
who  claimed  the  pre-eminence  for  this  or  that  form 
of  worship  and  temple,  and  who  fought  one  an- 
other with  malignant  hatred,  contributed  not  a 
little  to  the  formation  of  sects.  The  Puranas 
belong  to  this  time  of  religious  divisions,  *  *  * 
which  in  their  present  form  hardly  extend  beyond 
the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries  of  our  era." 
Compare  Meyer's  Konversations  LexikonX  where 
it  said  of  them:  "Along  with  these  reminiscences 
of  primitive  times  they  show  the  peculiarities  of 
a  modern  tendency,"  etc. 

There  seems,  therefore,  to  be  no  doubt  that  the 
Bhagavat  Purana  may  have  derived  those  partic- 

*  Compare  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  9,  pp.  245,  247 ; 
vol.  15,  p.  844  sq. 
t  Allgemeine  Weltgescliichte,  Leipzig,  1857,  vol.  1.  p.  296. 
X  Leipzig,  1878,  vol.  13.,  p.  341. 


IKTERl^AL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  33 

ulars  ill  wliicli  the  portraiture  of  Krishna  corres- 
ponds to  that  of  Christ  through  the  medium  of 
one  of  the  Apocryphal  Gospels.  Without  laying 
any  weight  upon  the  tradition  given  by  Eusebius' 
Ecclesiastical  History,  B.  Y.,  10,  that  Pantaenus 
visited  the  Indies  and  found  on  his  arrival  that 
Bartholomew,  one  of  the  Apostles,  had  already 
preached  there  and  left  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  in 
Hebrew,  since  the  India  referred  to  here  is  gener- 
ally supposed  to  have  been  Arabia,  it  is  not  difficult 
to  suppose  that  some  form  of  the  Gospel  of  the 
Infancy,  which  existed  both  in  Syriac  and  Arabic 
translations,  may  have  given  a  coloring  to  the 
myths  respecting  Krishna.  Indeed,  this  is  far 
more  reasonable  than  the  theory  that  the  Apocry- 
phal Gospels  have  gathered  only  these  things  from 
the  myths  of  Krishna,  since  they  do  not  exhibit 
any  traces  of  a  hero  who  is  represented  as  revel- 
ing in  licentiousness  and  mischief,  for  when  we 
come  to  the  person  of  Christ  there  is  no  similarity 
in  the  portraiture. 

INTERNAL   CHARACTER  OF  THE    GOSPELS. 

Leaving  the  discussion  of  Judge  Waite's  exter- 
nal history  of  the  Gospels,  not  because  I  have  by 
any  means  indicated  all  his  false  hypotheses,  but 
for  want  of  time,  I  turn  to  consider  very  briefly 
his  criticisms  on  their  internal  character.  His 
strictures  upon  them  are  as  histories.     Hence  he 

3 


34  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

dwells  upon  their  alleged  discrepancies  and  their 
incompleteness.     It  must  be  evident,  however,  that 
he  judges  them  from  a  false  standpoint.     As  their 
name  Gospels  implies,  they  are  not  histories,  but 
glad  tidings,  good  news,  for  particular  classes  of 
people.     They  differ  as  much  from  complete  biog- 
raphies as  historical  discourses  do,  which  are  de- 
signed to  teach  specific  lessons.     Their  authors 
were  by  no  means  anxiously  concerned  to  secure  a 
verbal  agreement.     If  that  had  been  the  case  it 
would  have  been  a  very  simple  matter  for  each 
Evangelist  to  have  so  given  the  inscription  on  the 
cross  that  there  should  have  been  no  deviation ; 
but  would  not  our  skeptics  have  been  ready  to 
accuse  them  of  collusion?      Would  not  four  per- 
sons who  should  repeat  the  same  story  word  for 
word  in  court  excite  suspicion?      It  is  not  within 
the  range  of  human  power  for  different  individuals 
to  report  the  same  events  and  discourses,  experi- 
enced and  heard  in  a  series  of  years,  alike  or  in  the 
same  order.     Shall  we,  therefore,  deny  that  the 
facts   reported  ever  happened?      Certainly,  if  we 
had  only  one  Gospel,  skeptics  would  claim  that  it 
was  not  true  because  it  lacked  confirmation.     If 
all  the  Gospels  related  the  same  facts  in  the  same 
order,  it  would  be  argued  more  strenuously  than 
at  present,  that  one  had  been  derived  from  another. 
But  as  the  case  now  stands  variations  in  the  ac- 


INTERNAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  35 

counts,  which  under  ordinary  tests  would  not  be 
regarded  as  fatal  to  the  substantial  accuracy  of  the 
narrative,  are  urged  as  reasons  for  doubting  every- 
thing of  a  supernatural  character.  If,  however, 
we  once  admit  the  claim  of  Scripture  that  God 
became  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  we  have  no  dif- 
ficulty in  regard  "to  the  immaculate  conception, 
the  miracles,  or  Christ's  actual  resurrection. 

Indeed,  as  regards  the  miracles,  I  cannot  con- 
ceive how  a  compassionate  Redeemer  could  resist 
the  cries  for  help  which  were  directed  to  Him  as 
He  walked  among  men.  Now,  the  fact  that  there 
has  been  no  anxious  attempt  to  conform  one  Gos- 
pel narrative  to  another  in  every  particular  is,  as  I 
have  already  suggested,  an  indication  of  genuine- 
ness, especially  as  it  has  been  ably  shown  by  Canon 
Wescott*  and  others  that  each  Gospel  was  designed 
to  meet  the  wants  of  a  specific  class,  Matthew 
being  written  originally  for  the  Jews,  Mark  for 
the  Romans,  Luke  for  the  Hellenists,  and  John 
for  the  Alexandrians,  and  so  the  Gospels  came  to 
have  a  universal  character  adapted  to  every  age 
and  civilization.  Much  is  made  of  the  differences 
between  John  and  the  first  three  Gospels,  not  only 
as  to  the  facts  related,  but  also  with  reference  to 
the  style  of  Jesus'  addresses.     But  the  difficulty 

*  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels,  London, 
1875,  p.  209,  sq. 


36  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

disappears  when  we  remember  that  Matthew,  Mark, 
and  Luke  present  the  scenes  of  Christ^s  Galilean 
ministry  among  the  rude  peasantry  who  were  less 
acquainted  with  the  law  than  their  southern 
brethren,  and  who  needed  simple  and  direct  teach- 
ing; on  the  other  hand,  John  sets  forth  mainly 
Christ's  Judean  ministry  among  those  who  w^ere 
conversant  with  the  law  and  were  accustomed  to 
elaborate  discussions.  The  ministry  of  one  year 
implied  by  the  Synoptists,  considered  by  them- 
selves, does  not  exclude  the  three  years'  ministry 
which  is  derived  from  John's  Gospel,  for  the  four 
taken  together  supplement  each  other.  I  shall 
not  enter  here  into  the  difficult  subject  of  the 
genealogies,  or  of  the  enrollment.  They  have 
been  explained  sufficiently,  considering  our  want 
of  data,  to  satisfy  every  seeker  after  the  truth  who 
does  not  wish  to  find  a  stumbling-block  in  them. 
Canon  Farrar,  who  confesses  that  he  would  be 
perfectly  ready  with  his  views  of  inspiration  to 
admit  that  they  involved  historical  inaccuracies  if 
necessary,  receives  the  records  in  regard  to  them 
as  true. 

IIi[FLUENCE  OF  ROMAN  HIERARCHY. 

i  I  pass  now  to  consider  the  alleged  influence  of 
the  Roman  hierarchy  upon  the  four  Gospels.  I 
shall   not  attempt  to  controvert  Judge  Waite's 


INFLUENCE  OF  ROMAN  HIERARCHY.  37 

preposterous  assumption,  but  merely  to  show  that 
the  claim  that  Victor  played  the  part  of  a  sover- 
eign pontiff  in  excommunicating  the  non-con- 
forming Asiatic  churches  who  differed  with  him 
in  regard  to  the  celebration  of  Easter,  and  that 
Irenaeus  supported  his  supremacy,  cannot  be  es- 
tablished. Griesselersays:*  ''With  the  rejection 
of  Montanism  in  Rome  was  probably  connected 
Victor's  opposition  to  the  Asiatic  mode  of  cele- 
brating Easter.  He  called  upon  the  bishops  in 
Asia  Minor  (about  196)  to  adopt  the  customs  of 
the  West  on  this  point,  and  after  their  refusal, 
when  he  had  been  assured  of  the  assent  of  the 
bishops  in  Palestine,  Pontus,  Gaul,  and  Corinth, 
broke  off  church  communion  with  them.  Several 
bishops,  however,  and  Irenaeus  himself  among 
them,  admonished  him  on  account  of  his  too  great 
haste;  peace  was  again  restored,  and  both  parties 
continued  undisturbed  in  the  observance  of  their 
own  customs  till  the  council  of  Nice."  It  is 
clearly  evident  that  a  Roman  bishop  who  had  to 
yield  to  the  protests  of  his  brethren  was  not  abso- 
lute, and  that  Irenaeus  in  denouncing  his  course, 
as  he  does  in  no  measared  language,  is  by  no 
means  the  subservient  creature  to  the  Church  of 
Rome  that  Judge  Waite  would  have  us  believe.f 

*  Church  History,  New  York,  1857,  vol.  1,  pp.  196-97. 
t  Compare,  Schaff's  History  of  the  Christian  C  huroh 
New  York,  1869,  vol.  1,  pp.  375,  428. 


OO  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

In  closing  it  will  be  seen  that  Judge  Waite's 
assumption  that  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  immaculate  conception,  of  miracles, 
and  of  Christ's  material  (i.e.  actual)  resurrection 
in  the  first  century,  is,  even  according  to  his 
theory,  unfounded,  because  he  asserts  that  the 
Gospels  then  existing  are  lost  and  we  are  not  ac- 
quainted with  their  contents.  I  have  shown  that 
the  consensus  of  criticism  is  that  Justin  Martyr 
used  at  least  three  of  our  Gospels,  and  according 
to  Professor  Abbot  and  other  able  scholars  the 
fourth,  that  Marcion  had  Luke,  that  the  Murato- 
rian  fragment  mentions  the  last  two  Gospels  and 
implies  the  other  two;  that  the  old  Latin  version 
contained  the  four  Gospels.  Here,  then,  is  pos- 
itive proof,  in  the  opinion  of  all  critics,  except 
those  who  are  blinded  by  prejudice,  that  the  three 
(and  perhaps  four)  Gospels  were  in  existence  in 
the  time  of  Justin  Martyr.  This  result  has  been 
secured  by  the  most  careful  sifting  of  evidence. 
Thus  far  the  case  is  not  argued  on  probabilities, 
but  is  as  strong  and  positive  as  anything  can  be 
under  the  circumstances.  From  every  point  the 
argument  is  strengthened.  I  quote  for  illustra- 
tration  from  Sanday:*  '^Irenaeus  (who  speaks  of 
the  four  Gospels,)  as  we  have  seen,  was  writing  in 

"^The  Gospels  in  the  Second  Ceziiwr.y,  Loudon,  1876, 
p.  326. 


JUSTIIS"  MARTYR.  39 

the  decade  180-190  A.  D.  But  his  evidence  is 
surely  valid  lor  an  earlier  date  than  this.  He  is 
usually  supposed  to  have  been  born  about  the  year 
140  A.  D.,  and  the  way  in  which  he  describes  his 
relations  to  Polycarp  will  not  admit  of  a  date 
many  years  later.  But  his  strong  sense  of  the 
the  continuity  of  church  doctrine  and  the  excep- 
tional veneration  that  he  accords  to  the  Gospels 
seem  alone  to  exclude  the  supposition  that  any  of 
them  should  have  been  composed  in  his  own  life- 
time." 

JUSTII^  MARTYR. 

Returning,  then,  to  Justin  Martyr,  the  weight 
of  critical  ev^idence  shows  that,  at  the  latest  in 
the  year  116  or  117  A.  D.,  he  appeals  to  Gospels 
which  critics  maintain  were  coextensive  with 
our  first  three,  and  as  Professor  Abbot  and 
other  eminent  critics  hold,  with  the  four. 
These,  as  Professor  Abbot  shows,  Justin  Mar- 
tyr mentions  eight  times  as  ''Memoirs  by  the 
Apostles ;"  four  times  he  calls  them  "  the 
Memoirs"  simply;  once  "Memoirs  made  by  the 
Apostles,  which  are  called  Gospels;"  once,  when 
he  cites  apparently  from  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
"Memoirs  composed  by  the  Apostles  of  Christ 
and  their  companions."  Once  again,  when  he 
speaks  of  a  fact  only  mentioned,  so  far  as  we 
know,  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  he  designates  as  his 


40  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

authority  ''Peter's  Memoirs,"  which,  supposing 
him  to  have  used  our  Gospels,  is  readily  explained 
by  the  fact  that  Peter  was  regarded  by  the  an- 
cients as  furnishing  the  materials  for  the  Gospel 
of  Mark,  his  traveling  companion  and  interpreter. 
"  On  the  day  called  Sunday,"  he  says,  "  all  who 
live  in  the  cities  or  in  the  country  gather  together 
to  one  place,  and  the  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles  or 
the  writings  of  the  Prophets  are  read  as  long  as 
time  permits.  When  the  reader  has  finished  the 
President  admonishes  and  exhorts  to  the  imitation 
of  these  good  things."  From  this  it  appears  that 
the  "  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles  "  were  held  in  as 
great  reverence  as  the  Prophets  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment; and  that  in  the  year  147  they  occupied  the 
same  pre-eminent  position  which  Irenaeus  assigned 
to  the  Gospels  forty  years  later;  hence,  irrespctive 
of  the  linguistic  evidence  furnished  by  the  critics, 
we  have  good  reason  for  believing  that  the  Mem- 
oirs of  Justin,  which  he  once  calls  Gospels,  are 
the  same  as  our  Canonical  Gospels,  since,  as  Mr. 
Norton  says:  "  We  cannot  suppose  that  writings 
such  as  the  Memoirs  of  which  Justin  speaks,  be- 
lieved to  be  the  works  of  Apostles  and  companions 
of  Apostles,  read  in  Chrirtian  churches,  and  re- 
ceived as  sacred  books  of  the  highest  authority, 
should  immediately  after  he  wrote  have  fallen  into 
neglect    and   oblivion,   and   been   superseded   by 


JOHNS'.  41 

another  set  of  books."  Up  to  this  point,  it  seems 
to  me  that  we  can  pretty  clearly  trace  the  presence 
of  the  Canonical  Gospels.  Earlier  than  this  the 
arguments  derived  from  the  quotations  found  in 
the  Apostolic  Fathers  taken  alone  would  not 
prove  the  contemporary  existence  of  our  Canon- 
ical Gospels,  still  the  evidence  furnished  by  some 
passages  in  Barnabas  (130  A.  D.)  and  in  Clement 
of  Rome  (95-100  A.  D.),  which  correspond  to 
passages  in  our  Gospels  seem  to  be  confirmatory; 
and  taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  that  the 
Memoirs,  or  Gospels,  which  were  held  in  such 
reverence  in  the  churches  at  the  time  of  Justin, 
could  not  have  suddenly  secured  that  pre-emi- 
nence, is  important.  We  are  thus  borne  on 
toward  the  end  of  the  first  century,  and  can  now 
better  appreciate  the  various  dates  assigned  to  our 
four  Gospels  by  eminent  scholars. 

JOHN". 

Taking  up  the  Gospel  of  John  as  the  youngest, 
we  find  that  the  progress  of  criticism  has  been 
that  of  a  retreat  towards  the  beginning  of  the 
second  century.  While  Baur  and  Schwegler  of 
the  Tuebingeri  school  assigned  it  to  the  years  160 
and  170  A.  D.,  they  were  beaten  back  so  that  Zeller 
and  Scholten  adopted  the  year  150;  Hilgenfeld, 
at  last  compelled  to  admit  its  use  by  Justin 
Martyr,  retreats  to  a  time  between  130  and  140; 


42      '  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

Renaii  assigns  it  to  125  or  130^  and  Keim,  in  the 
first  volume  of  his  History  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
confidently  placed  it  between  110  and  115,  but 
seeing  the  dangerous  consequences  of  this  admis- 
sion, he  maintained,  in  his  last  volume  of  the  same 
work  that  it  arose  in  the  year  130.  '^  Schenkel  as- 
signs it  to  A.  D.  115-120."  In  this  connection 
Professor  Abbot,  from  whom  I  have  derived  these 
statements,  positively  says:  '*Itis  the  uniform 
tradition,  supported  by  great  weight  of  testimony, 
that  the  evangelist  John  lived  to  a  very  advanced 
age,  spending  the  latter  portion  of  his  life  in  Asia 
Minor,  and  dying  there  in  the  reign  of  Trajan,  not 
far  from  A.  D.  100.  How  could  a  spurious  Gospel 
of  a  character  so  peculiar,  so  different  from  the 
earlier  Synoptic  Grospels,  so  utterly  unhistorical, 
as  it  is  afiirmed  to  be  gain  currency  as  the  work 
of  the  Apostle,  both  among  Christians  and  the 
gnostic  heretics,  if  it  originated  only  twenty-five 
or  thirty  years  after  his  death,  when  so  many  who 
must  have  known  whether  he  wrote  such  a  work 
or  not  were  still  living."  It  will  then  be  seen 
that  the  probability  that  the  Apostle  John  wrote 
the  Fourth  Gospel  is  very  strong  indeed.  See  on 
this  point  an  admirable  critical  treatise  on  The 
Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  by  Professor 
Abbot,  Boston,  1880. 


LUKE — MARK.  43 

With  reference  to  Luke,  the  antiquated  hypoth- 
esis of  Schleiermacher*  with  reference  to  the  com- 
posite character  of  Luke,  which  Judge  Waite 
quotes  in  the  main  with  approval,  has  long  since 
been  rejected.  Weiss  remarks  that  the  genuine- 
ness of  this  Gospel  is  assured  by  the  external  wit- 
ness without  exception.  Baur  and  Zeller  hold 
that  it  arose  110-130  A.  D.  Hilgenfeld,  Keim, 
and  Volkmar  assign  it  to  the  year  100  A.  D.  Godet 
says  that  it  can  be  referred  back  as  far  as  the 
period  from  61  to  80  A.  D.,  and  Weiss  holds  that 
it  arose  between  70  and  SO.f 

MARK. 

Mark,  which  is  regarded  by  Weiss  as  the  prim- 
itive Gospel,  was  written,  according  to  Hitzig, 
55-57  A.  D.  Schenkel  before  60;  Volkmar,  73; 
Koestlin,  who  distinguishes  between  a  primitive 
Mark  (65-70)  and  our  Gospel,  before  110;  and 
Keim,  115-120.  The  best  authorities,  with  Weiss 
and  Meyer,  hold  that  it  arose  before  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem. 

*  Krit.  Versui-li  ueher  die  ScJirifteri  des  Luhas  I,  Berg 
lin,  1837. 

f  Compare  Weiss  Kritisch  Exegetishces  Handbuch- 
ueber  die  Ecangelien  des  Markus  und  Liikas,  Goettin- 
gen,  1878,  and  the  introduction  to  Godet's  excellent 
and  cheap  Commentary  on  Luke,  Kew  York,  1881. 


44  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

MATTHEW. 

Matthew  was  written,  according  to  Baur,  about 
130.  Hertwig,  however,  says*  that  in  his  opinion  he 
received  no  support.  Volkmar  places  it  between 
105  and  110,  Schenkel  after,  and  Keim  before,  70. 
Hertwig  says  that  it  was  certainly  written  before 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  between  60  and  70, 
and  this  latter  date  is  the  one  adopted  by  sober 
criticism. 

While  regarding  Judge  Waite's  work  as  a  com- 
plete failure  from  a  critical  point  of  view,  and  as 
years  behind  the  times,  except  so  far  as  he  leans 
upon  the  author  of  Supeniatural  Religion,  I  have 
no  doubt  that  the  book  will  do  many  great  injury 
on  account  of  its  apparent  learning  and  candor. 
Those,  however,  who  appreciate  the  weight  of 
the  testimony  which  Christianity  affords  in  its 
historical  existence,  as  confessedly  the  greatest 
and  most  beneficent  power  in  those  lands  which 
have  been  visited  by  the  Gospel,  vdil  not  be  shaken 
by  a  work  which  the}^  may  not  be  in  a  position  to 
refute,  while  the  Christian  scholar,  who  is  familiar 
with  the  ground  may  well  senile  at  the  assurance 
with  which  uncritical  and  absurd  hypotheses  are 
set  forth.     This  entire  class  of  literature  will  only 

*  Tahellen  zur Einleitung  ins  NeueTestainenU'BQxlin, 
1872. 


MATTHEW.  45 

lead  true  Christian  scholars  to  examine  the  founda- 
tions more  carefully  and  to  revindicate  those  glori- 
ous doctrines  which  skeptics,  from  Celsus  down  to 
the  present  time,  have  assailed  in  vain. 


PART    SECOND. 

WHEN  WERE  OUR  GOSPELS  WRITTEN  ? 

Within  the  past  few  months  the  assertion  has 
been  made  with  great  persistency,  in  various  pub- 
lications and  in  the  daily  press,  that  our  Gospels 
of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John  were  not  writ- 
ten before  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century, 
I  have  already  shown  in  the  foregoing  review  that 
even  those  modern  critics  who  do  not  accept  the 
supernatural  character  of  the  Gospels  are  con- 
strained, almost  to  a  man,  on  the  basis  of  scientific 
and  elaborate  investigations,  to  place  the  origin 
of  our  Gospels,  with  a  few  exceptions  in  regard  to 
the  Gospel  of  John,  either  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  first  century,  or  in  the  first  quarter  of  the 
second.  You  can  see  how  this  admission  gives 
the  anti-supernaturaiists  trouble,  but  they  cannot 
help  themselves.  The  evidence  is  against  them. 
It  is  not  my  purpose  to  weary  you  with  evidence 
which  can  only  be  appreciated  by  specialists.  I 
shall  simply  try,  so  far  as  I  may  be  enabled,  to 
present  a  cumulative  argument.  A  single  wire 
may  be  broken,  but  when  man}^  are  twisted  into 
cables,  and  properly  secured  on  each  side  of  a 
river,  they  furnish  an  adequate  support  over  which 


48  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

thousands  of  passengers  are  daily  carried  with  en- 
tire security.  This  may  serve  to  illustrate  the 
strength  of  the  arguments  for  the  genuineness 
of  the  Gospels  when  combined.  If  I  fail  to  gather 
them  together  it  will  not  be  because  they  do  not 
exist,  but  for  want  of  power  to  make  them  ap- 
parent. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  statement  that  our 
Gospels  were  not  written  before  the  last  quarter 
of  the  second  century.  It  is  admitted  that  they 
were  in  existence  at  that  time.  What  does  this 
admission  involve? 

DIEFUSIOiT   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

At  a  time  when  it  is  conceded  by  all,  except  by 
a  notorious  blasphemer,  who,  in  such  matters,  is  a 
profound  ignoramous,  that  the  Gospels  were  in 
existence,  the  Church  had  extended  even  beyond 
the  confines  of  the  Roman  world.  It  stretched 
from  the  Euphrates  to  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar, 
from  France,  and  probably  Britain  and  Germany, 
to  Africa,  including  Palestine,  Syria,  Greece,  and 
Italy.  Gibbon,*  who  is  very  moderate  in  chron- 
icling the  spread  of  Christianity^  estimates  that 
at  the  end  of  the  third  'century  there  were  six 
millions  of  Christians,  or  one  twentieth  of  the  pop- 
ulation of  the  Roman  world.  This  being  the  case, 
it  certainly  would  not  be  extravagant  to  suppose, 

^Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Emjyire,  Ch.  ii. 


DIFFUSION  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  49 

with  Norton,  that  at  the  close  of  the  second  cen- 
tury there  were  three  millions.  But  even  this 
estimate  seems  very  low  when  we  read  such  testi- 
monies as  those  of  Pliny  and  Tertallian. 

The  heathen  Phny,  who  had  been  sent  by  Tra^ 
jan  to  govern  the  provinces  of  Pontus  and  Bythinia, 
early  in  the  second  century^  writes  as  follows:  "I 
have  recourse  to  you  for  advice;  for  it  has  ap- 
peared to  me  a  subject  proper  to  consult  you  about; 
especially  on  account  of  the  number  of  those  [the 
Christians]  against  whom  accusations  are  brought. 
For  many  of  all  ages,  of  every  rank,  and  of  both 
sexes  likewise,  have  been  and  will  be  accused. 
The  contagion  of  this  superstition  has  made  its 
way  not  in  cities  onl5%  but  in  the  lesser  towns 
also,  and  in  the  open  country.  It  seems  to  me 
that  it  may  be  stopped  and  corrected.  It  is  cer- 
tain that  the  temples  which  were  almost  deserted 
begin  to  be  frequented;  and  the  sacred  solemnities 
are  revived  after  a  long  intermission.  Victims 
likewise  are  ever}/ where  sold,  of  which,  till  lately, 
there  were  very  few  purchasers."*  This  quotation 
clearly  shows  that  at  thi^time  more  tlian  one  in 
forty,  a  proportion  on  which  this  estimate  is  based,f 
were  Christians  in  Pontus  and  Bythinia.      And 

*  Plinii  Epist,  Lib.  X,  Eipst.  97. 
f  This  estimate  is  made  on  the  supposition  that  the 
population  of  the  Roman  Empire  was  then  120,000,000, 

4 


50  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  Christianity  was 
less  diffused  in  other  communities  where  it  had 
secured  a  foothold. 

Tertullian,  who  had  been  an  eminent  jurist,  who 
was  one  of  the  most  learned  men  of  his  time,  and 
who  was  converted  to  the  faith  which  he  had 
ridiculed,  after  he  was  thirty  j^ears  of  age,  bears 
this  testimony  to  the  spread  of  Christianity  about 
the  close  of  the  second  century: 

"We  are  but  of  yesterday,  and  we  have  filled 
everything  that  is  yours,  cities,  islands,  castles, 
free  towns^  council-halls,  the  very  camps,  all  classes 
of  men,  the  palace,  the  senate,  the  forum.  We 
have  left  you  nothing  but  your  temples.  *  *  * 
If  we,  such  a  multitude  of  men,  had  broken  away 
from  you,  retiring  into  some  remote  corner  of  the 
world,  your  government  would  have  been  covered 
with  shame  at  the  loss  of  so  many  citizens,  who- 
ever they  might  be.  *  *  *  Without  doubt 
you  would  have  been  terrified  at  your  solitude;  at 
the  silence  and  stupor  of  all  things,  as  if  the 
world  were  dead.  You  would  have  had  to  look 
about  you  for  subjects.'^ 

But  you  say  that  this  language  is  rhetorical  and 
exaggerated.  Granted;  yet  there  must  have  been 
a  foundation  for  these  statements,  of  which  the 
evidences  were  before  the  very  eyes  of  his  oppo- 
nents.    Tertullian  had  too  keen  a  mind  to  make 


DIFFUSIOiT  OF  CHRISTIAN^ITY.  51 

assertions  which  were  utterly  false  and  would  have 
covered  him  with  derision.  We  may  then  con- 
sider that  we  are  warranted  in  accepting  the 
estimate  that  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second 
century  there  were  in  the  Roman  Empire  at  least 
three  millions  of  Christians. 

But  although  there  were  so  many,  they  had  not 
been  united  under  one  head.     While  holding  the 
same  fundamental  doctrines,  for  in  this  survey  I 
do  not  at  all  take  into  account  the  heretics,  they 
were  widely  separated  from  each  other  by  differ- 
ences of  race,  language  and  religious  views.  There 
had  not  yet  been  a  general  council.     Even  rating 
the  facilities  of  communication  which  the  Roman 
government  had  at  its   command  at  the   highest, 
the  difficulties  in  th()  way  of  an  interchange  of 
views  between  churches  which  were  under  the  ban 
are  almost   beyond  our  comprehension  in  these 
days  of  rapid  transit;  and  yet,  that  most  careful 
scholar,  Professor  Abbot,  of  Harvard  College,  boldly 
declares,   as   unquestionable^   that   ''Our  present 
four  Gospels,  and  no  others,  were  received  by  the 
great  body  of  Christians  as  genuine  and  sacred 
books  during  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  cen- 
tury;"* in  other  words,  our  Gospels  were  received 
as  genuine  by  three  millions  of  Christians,  widely 
separated  from  each  other  by  forests,  mountains, 
*  Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  Boston,  1880,  p.  13. 


62  THE  DATE  OF  OUE  GOSPELS. 

and  seas,  speaking  different  languages  and  holding 
different  shades  of  religious  belief,  in  the  last 
quarter  of  the  second  century. 

KECEPTION  OE  THE  POUR  GOSPELS. 

This  proposition  is  established  by  the  following 
considerations: 

First.  The  weight  of  critical  authority  goes  to 
show  that  an  old  Latin  version  containing  the 
Gospels  was  current  in  the  last  quarter  of  the 
second  century. 

Second.  The  same  date,  although  without  equal 
positiveness,  is  assigned  by  many  of  the  foremost 
scholars  to  the  Syriac  version  of  the  Gospels. 

Third.  All  critics  of  eminence,  about  forty  in 
all,  with  possibly  two  or  three  exceptions,  concede 
that  the  Muratorian  fragment,  which  mentions 
the  Gospels  as  belonging  to  the  New  Testament 
Canon,  originated,  at  the  latest,  in  the  last  quarter 
of  the  second  century. 

Fourth.  Irenseus,  who  was  born  between  125 
and  130  A.  D.,  after  spending  his  youth  in  Asia 
Minor,  became  bishop  of  Lyons,  in  France. 
He,  as  well  as  the  other  Church  Fathers,  whom  I 
shall  cite,  was  a  man  of  rare  education  and  intel- 
ligence. Norton  in  his  admirable  work  on  the 
Genuineness  of  the  Gospels^  says:  "The  pas- 
sages cited  by  him  [Irenaeus]  from  the  Gospels  * 
*     *     fill  about  eleven  closely  printed  folio  col- 


RECEPTION"  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.  53 

umns;  while  the  passages  cited  from  all  the  Old 
Testament  fill  about  fifteen  such  columns.  He 
appeals  to  the  Gospels  continually  and  quotes 
them  as  undoubted  authority  for  the  faith  of  the 
great  body  of  Christians,  with  the  same  confidence 
which  might  be  felt  by  any  writer  of  the  present 
day.  They  were  books  in  general  circulation  and 
commonly  studied."  *  Irenaeus  himself  says: 
"All  the  Scriptures,  both  Prophecies  and  Gospels, 
are  clear  and  without  ambiguity,  and  may  be 
heard  in  like  manner  by  all,  though  all  do  not 
believe.^t 

Is  it  conceivable  that  Irenaeus  would  have  made 
such  constant  appeals  to  the  Gospels,  placing  them 
on  an  equality  with  the  Old  Testament,  if  they 
had  not  been  generally  received  by  the  church  ? 

Fifth.  Clement,  of  Alexandria,  who,  after  his 
conversion,  traveled  in  Greece,  Italy,  Syria,  and 
Palestine,  seeking  religious  instruction,  and  who, 
about  the  year  190  A.  D.,  became  the  head  of  the 
catechetical  school  at  Alexandria,  made  such  fre- 
quent quotations  from  the  Gospels  that  his  extant 
works  are  of  great  value  in  settling  the  true  text. 
He  not  only  claims  in  one  passage  that  '*  the 
Scriptures  which  we  [Christians]  have  believed  are 

*  The  Evidences  of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels, 
Cambridge,  1846,  vol.  i.  p.  134. 
\Lih.  ii.  c.  27. 


54  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

confirmed  by  the  authority  of  the  Omnipotent," 
but  proposes  •'  to  evince  from  them  in  opposition 
to  all  heretics,  that  there  is  one  God  and  almighty 
Lord,  clearly  proclaimed  by  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets,  and  together  with  them  by  the  blessed- 
Gospel."!  Again  he  disposes  of  a  reputed  saying 
of  Christ  quoted  by  certain  heretics  from  an 
apocryphal  book,  by  remarking:  "In  the  first 
place,  we  have  not  that  saying  in  the  four  Gospels 
which  have  been  handed  down  to  us."  Such  lan- 
guage and  such  a  constant  use  of  the  Gospels  pre- 
supposes that  they  were  in  common  use  among 
the  Christians  when  he  wrote. 

Sixth.  Tertullian,  who  was  born  at  Carthage, 
160,  A.  D.,  writes  as  follows:  "Among  the  Apos- 
tles, John  and  Matthew  form  the  faith  within  us. 
Among  the  companions  of  the  Apostles,  Luke  and 
Mark  renovate  it."§  Again,  in  writing  to  heath- 
ens in  defense  of  Christians,  he  says;  "Examine 
the  words  of  God,  our  literature,  which  we  are  far 
from  concealing,  and  which  many  accidents  throw 
in  the  way  of  those  who  are  not  of  our  number." 
*  ''^  In  this  very  connection  he  quotes  two  passages 
from  these  Scriptures,  one  from  the  Gospels  and 
the  other  from  the  Epistles,  with  reference  to  the 

^  Stro7nata,  B.  iv.  c.  1. 

§  Adcersus  MarGionem,  Lib.  iv. 

*  *  A2^ologetirMS,  §  31. 


RECEPTION  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.  55 

duties  of  Christians  in   respect  to    civil  govern- 
ment. 

From  this  it  seems  that  in  Africa  the  Gospels 
were  not  only  accessible  to  believers,  but  also  to 
unbelievers. 

Seventh.  Last,  but  not  least,  we  have  the  testi- 
mony of  Celsus,  who  wrote,  according  to  the  best 
authorities,  about  177  or  178  A.  D.  It  was  the 
object  of  this  brilliant  heathen  controversialist  to 
destroy  Christianity  by  argument.  Mr.  Norton 
shows  conclusively  that  his  attacks  were  based  on 
our  four  Gospels.  In  speaking  of  the  remains  of 
Celsus,  which  have  been  preserved  by  Origen,  he 
says: 

"It  appears  from  these  extracts  that  Christians, 
in  the  time  of  Celsus,  bad  histories  of  our  Savior 
which  they  believed  to  have  been  written  by  His 
disciples,  and  the  genuineness  of  which  was  not 
controverted  by  him.  Without  mentioning  their 
authors  by  name,  he  frequently  quotes  and  refers 
to  them.  It  has  been  observed  with  truth  that  an 
abridgement  of  the  history  of  Jesus,  correspond- 
ing to  that  in  the  Gospels  may  be  found  in  the  re- 
mains of  his  work.  *  *  *  He  calls  Christ  Him- 
self a  carpenter.  He  speaks  of  His  miracles,  of 
His  having  cured  the  lame  and  blind,  fed  a  multi- 
tude on  a  few  loaves,  and  raised  the  dead;  and  ar- 
gues upon  the  supposition  that  these  facts  really 


56  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

took  place.  *  *  *  The  numerous  objections  of 
Celsus  to  the  accounts  received  by  Christians  re- 
specting our  Savior  are  always  made  to  accounts 
found  in  the  Gospels.  *  *  *  He  nowhere  im- 
plies the  existence  of  any  narrative  respecting 
Christ  as  believed  by  Christians,  which  is  not  re- 
lated by  the  Evangelists.  But  in  attacking  these 
books,  that  is,  our  present  Gospels,  Celsus  evi- 
dently considered  himself  to  be  undermining  the 
foundations  of  Christianity;  to  be  attacking 
books  regarded  by  Christians  as  of  the  highest 
authority,  as  the  authentic  records  of  the  history 
of  their  master,  composed  or  sanctioned  by  His 
immediate  desciples.  We  have,  then,  the  evidence 
of  an  enemy  of  our  religion,  that  the  Gospels 
were  thus  regarded  bv  the  Christians  of  his 
age."* 

CHEAPKESS  OF  MANUSCRIPTS. 

It  has  been  shown  by  Norton  and  others  through 
quotations  from  classic  authors  that  ordinary  man- 
uscripts could  be  produced  very  cheaply,  so  that 
one  whom  Juvenal  describes,  about  the  close  of  the 
first  century,  as  exceedingly  poor  was  an  owner  of 
books.f  His  contempory,  Martial,^  says  that  one 
of  his  books,  containing  two  hundred  and  seven- 

*  Evidences,  etc.,  vol.  i.  pp.  143-146. 
t  Sat.  iii.  206. 
i  Lib.  Epig.  3. 


CHEAPN-ESS  OF  MAiq^USCRIPTS.  57 

ty-two  verses,  could  be  had  for  two  sestertii,  that 
is  about  seven  cents,  and  it  will  be  remembered 
that  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles*  we  have  an  ac- 
count of  the  burning  of  magical  books  by  converts, 
which  were  valued  at  about  $7,500,  showing  that 
if  they  possessed  such  manuscripts  before  their 
conversion,  they  could  certainly  afford  to  purchase 
the  Gospels  after  it.  It  is  probable  that  when 
Christians  could  secure  a  copy  of  the  Gospels  for 
a  few  cents  that  a  great  many  copies  must  have 
been  scattered  among  three  millions  of  Christians. 
Now  we  are  asked  to  believe  that  four  new  Gos- 
pels, differing  from  those  which  had  been  pre- 
viously accepted  by  the  church,  were  received 
without  the  slightest  objection  or  debate  in  Syria, 
in  Africa,  in  Italy,  and  France,  among  Christians 
so  diverse  in  customs,  in  language,  and  in  their 
religious  views;  that  they  were  received  by  Chris- 
tians who  were  neither  held  together  by  a  supreme 
pontiff  nor  a  general  council,  and  that  they  were 
accepted  by  some  of  the  most  eminent  scholars  of 
the  age,  without  discussion,  and  without  the  least 
ripple  of  excitement  being  occasioned  by  this 
momentous  change.  Other  matters  of  inferior 
importance  have  been  transmitted  to  us  from  that 
period,  but  there  is  nowhere  even  a  hint  of  the 
adoption  of  these  new  Gospels.  Is  such  a  hy- 
*  xix.  19. 


58  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

pothesis  in  view  of  the  facts  credible?  Would 
not  the  introluction  of  our  Gospels  for  the  first 
time  in  th-  last  quarter  of  the  second  century  be 
a  greater  miracle  than  the  miracles  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  unbelievers  wish  to  banish  from 
our  Bibles?  Is  anything,  after  all,  so  credulous 
as  unbelief  ?  Let  a  man  who  knows  nothing 
about  Bibical  criticism,  the  veriest  quack,  who  has 
been  all  his  days  a  lawyer,  write  a  book;  and  there 
are  at  least  some  who  will  ask  if  the  foundations 
have  not  been  moved?  Just  as  though  the  inves- 
tigations and  conclusions  of  learned  men  through 
all  the  centuries  were  to  be  overturned  by  the 
crude  hypotheses  and  absurd  investigations  of  one, 
concerning  whose  theory  as  to  the  date  of  the 
Gospels,  the  most  eminent  scholar  in  New  Testa- 
ment criticism,  in  Leipzig,  German}^,  says  in  a 
postal  of  recent  date:  '"Derjenige  icelcher  die 
Evangelien  in  das  letzte  Viertel  des  ziveiten  Jahr- 
hundert  verlegen  will  ist  ein  imivissender  Narr,'' — 
''The  one  who  desires  to  transfer  the  Gospels  to 
to  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century  is  an  ig- 
norant fool."  Of  course  the  writer  of  these 
words  had  no  idea  that  they  would  be  published, 
and  so  expressed  his  undisguised  contempt  for  a 
theory  which  has,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  not  a  sin- 
gle supporter  among  German  scholars. 

But  to  return  to  thea       rtion  that  the  presence 


CHEAPifESS  OF  MANUSCRIPTS.  59 

of  the  Gospels  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second 
century  simply  indicates  that  they  were  first  writ- 
ten at  that  time.  The  absurdity  of  this  proposi- 
tion has  been  clearly  put  by  Mr.  Norton,  who  has 
been  quoted  with  approval  by  Professor  Abbot  in 
the  following  passage:* 

"About  the  end  of  the  second  century  the 
Gospels  were  reverenced  as  sacred  books  by  a  com- 
munity dispersed  over  the  world,  composed  of  men 
of  different  nations  and  languages.  There  were, 
to  say  the  least,  sixty  thousand  copies  of  them  in 
existence;!  they  were  read  in  the  churches  of 
Christians;  they  were  continually  quoted  and 
appealed  to  as  of  the  highest  authority;  their 
reputation  was  as  well  established  among  believers 
from  one  end  of  the  Christian  community  to  the 
other  as  it  is  at  the  present  day  among  Christians 
in  any  country.  But  it  is  asserted  that  before  that 
period  we  find  no  trace  of  their  existence  ;  and  it 
is  therefore  inferred  that  they  were  not  in  common 

*  The  AutTiorsiiip  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  Boston,  1880, 
pp.  17-18. 

f  Korton,  in  view  of  the  trifling  cost  of  the  Gospels, 
says :  "  I  shall  not,  therefore,  I  think,  be  charged  with 
over-estimating,  if  1  suppose  that  there  was  one  copy 
of  the  Gospel  for  every  fifty  Christians.  *  *  *  This 
proportion,  however,  will  give  us  sixty  thousand 
copies  of  the  Gospel  for  three  millions  of  Christians." 
— Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  51-52. 


60  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

use,  and  but  little  known,  even  if  extant  in  their 
present  form.  This  reasoning  is  of  the  same  kind 
as  if  one  were  to  say  that  the  first  mention  of 
Egyptian  Thebes  is  in  the  time  Homer.  He,  in- 
deed, describes  it  as  a  city  which  poured  an  hun- 
dred armies  from  its  hundred  gates;  but  his  is  the 
first  mention  of  it,  and  therefore  we  have  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  before  his  time  it  was  a 
place  of  any  considerable  note." 

CHRISTIANITY  FOUNDED  ON  FACTS. 

We  have  already  seen  the  absurdity  of  supposing 
that  our  four  Grospels  could  have  been  introduced 
for  the  first  time  in  the  last  quarter  of  bhe  second 
century,  and  no  records  have  been  left  of  their 
introduction.  Such  a  supposition  must  also  be 
reconciled  with  the  fact  that  at  that  time  Chris- 
tianity in  its  chief  characteristics,  as  dependent 
upon  the  Gospel  record,  was  a  system  based  on 
certain  facts.  There  is,  indeed,- no  more  remarka- 
ble phenomenon  in  history  than  the  origin  and 
growth  of  the  Christian  church  when  explained 
on  natural  principles.  Its  founder  died  ashameful 
death.  One  would  have  supposed,  humanly  speak- 
ing, that  this  would  have  been  sufficient  to  seal  its 
doom.  A  party  numbering  five  hundred  thousand, 
who  had  joined  a  false  Messiah,  Bar  Cochba,  one 
hundred  years  after  Christ's  death,  were  stamped 
out  with  their  leader  by  the  Roman  power,  and 


CHRISTIANITY  FOUNDED  ON  FACTS.  61 

not  one  disciple  of  tliat  deceiver,  so  far  as  I  know, 
remains.  But  the  death  of  Christ,  although  at 
first  such  a  terrible  shock  to  His  disciples,  seemed 
to  be  the  beginning  of  new  power  to  His  fol- 
lowers. In  a  few  weeks  thousands  were  con- 
verted in  a  day,  and  that  too  although  the 
doctrines  preached  humbled  the  pride  of  men 
in  the  dust,  and  went  counter  to  their  natural 
inclinations.  They  relinquished  every  worldly  ad- 
vantage. Covered  with  pitch  they  blazed  in  the 
gardens  of  cruel  Nero.  They  were  thrown  to  the 
lions.  Tender  maidens  were  gored  to  death  by  in- 
furiated bulls.  Special  tortures  were  devised,  and 
they  were  massacred  until  their  persecutors  became 
weary,  and  still  they  increased,  so  that  at  the  end 
of  the  second  century  they  numbered,  as  we  have 
seen,  more  than  three  millions,  including  persons 
of  every  rank  and  men  of  the  highest  education.  I 
will  not  ask  whether  there  is  anything  supernatural 
in  such  a  history.  I  simply  ask  did  they  or  did 
they  not  know  in  whom  they  believed?  Did  they 
or  did  they  not  know  anything  definite  in  regard 
to  his  history?  Had  they  or  had  they  not  auy 
well-defined  doctrines?  iVnd  if  they  had,  is  it 
probable  that  these  facts  and  doctrines  would  be 
easily  f  jrgotten?  Had  they  or  had  they  not  Gos- 
pels which  had  become  the  sheet-anchor  of  their 
faith  through  long  years  of  agony,  and  are  we  to 


62  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

suppose  that  they  relinquished  the  dear  old  Grospels 
after  a  hundred  years  for  new  and  strange  ones? 

The  martj^r's  Gospels  would  be  the  dearest  Gos- 
pels to  the  church,  and  Christians  would  almost  as 
soon  think  of  plucking  out  their  right  eyes  as  of 
relinquishing  books  which  had  been  baptized  in 
the  blood  of  their  loved  ones. 

JUSTIN"  martyr's  gospels. 

But  we  are  not  left  to  such  suppositions,  strong 
as  they  may  be.  We  have  positive  proof  that 
Justin  Martyr,  who  Avas  born  about  the  end  of  the 
first  century,  and  wrote  the  treatise  from  which 
we  quote  in  14T  A.  D.,  was  acquainted  with  our 
Gospels,  which  he  once  designates  by  that  name, 
but  usually  calls  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,  or 
Memoirs  of  the  Apostles  and  their  Followers.  It 
will  be  seen  at  once  that  the  force  of  our  argu- 
ment carries  us  to  an  earlier  age  than  that  of  Justin 
Martyr.  For  it  is  utterly  inconceivable  that  the 
Gospels  mentioned  by  Irenseus  are  different  from 
those  spoken  of  by  Justin  Martyr.  We  are  not, 
however,  left  to  this  argument,  for  critics  are  sub- 
stantially agreed  that  Justin  Martyr  was  familiar 
with  our  Gospels.  It  has  been  urged  that  he  never 
mentions  them  by  name,  as  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke, 
or  John,  but  then  it  must  be  remembered  that  he 
was  arguing  in  one  treatise  with  a  heathen,  and 
in  another  with  a  Jew.     They  neither  knew  nor 


jusTii^  martyr's  gospels.  63 

cared  for  the  opinions  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  or 
John,  nor  could  the}^  well  understand  the  term 
Gospels,  which  was  not  current  among  them.  It 
was  therefore  most  natural  that  Justin  should 
allude  to  the  Gospels  as  memoirs,  or  memorabilia 
of  the  Apostles.  It  has  been  objected  too  that 
Justin's  quotations  are  not  exact.  This  failing  was 
not  uncommon  among  the  early  Church  Fathers; 
it  is  not  uncommon  in  this  day  of  concordances 
and  of  chapters  and  verses.  In  order  to  verify  a 
reference  in  the  Gospels  it  would  be  necessary  for 
him  to  hunt  in  a  roll  where  there  were  no  divis- 
ions into  chapters  and  verses,  or  even  into  words. 
A  man  might  be  excused,  therefore,  for  quoting 
passages  in  the  Gospels  according  to  the  sense, 
especially  when  it  was  not  necessary  that  he  should 
give  the  exact  words  to  his  opponents.  Now  in 
view  of  these  facts,  the  following  citation  from 
Justin  Martyr,  is  very  significant.     He  says: 

"  On  the  day  called  Sunday  all  who  live  in  cities 
or  in  the  country  gather  together  to  one  place, 
and  the  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles  or  the  writings 
of  the  Prophets  are  read  as  long  as  time  permits.'*' 

It  will   be  seen  from  this  quotation  that  the 

Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,  which  in  another  place 

he  calls  the  Gospels,  occupy  the  same  honorable 

position  as  the  Old  Testament;  that  they  are  pub- 

*  Apolog.,  I.  C.  67. 


64  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

licly  read  in  the  churclies  as  our  Gospels  were  in 
the  time  of  Irenaeus,  and  that  the  circumstances 
in  the  case  do  not  admit  of  their  having  been  dif- 
ferent books  from  those  which  forty  years  later 
were  so  extensively  circulated  in  the  churches. 
Such  a  supposition  is  in  the  highest  degree  im- 
probable when  we  remember,  as  Norton  suggests, 
that — 

"  Irenaeus  was  in  the  vigor  of  life  before  Justin's 
death;  and  the  same  was  true  of  very  many  thou- 
sands of  Christians  living  when  Irenaeus  wrote. 
But  he  tells  us  that  the  four  Gospels  are  the  four 
pillars  of  the  church,  the  foundation  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  written  by  those  who  had  first  orally 
preached  the  Gospel,  by  two  Apostles  and  two 
companions  of  Apostles.  It  is  incredible  that 
Irenffius  and  Justin  should  have  spoken  of  different 
books.  We  cannot  suppose  that  writings,  such  as 
the  Memoirs  of  which  Justin  speaks,  believed  to 
be  the  works  of  Apostles  and  companions  of  the 
Apostles,  read  in  Christian  churches  and  received 
as  sacred  books  of  the  highest  authoritj ,  should 
immediately  after  he  wrote  have  fallen  into  neglect 
and  oblivion,  and  been  superseded  by  another  set 
of  books.  The  strong  sentiment  of  their  value 
could  not  so  silently  and  so  unaccountably  have 
been  transferred  to  other  writings.  The  copies  of 
them  spread  over  the  world  could  not  so  suddenly 


GOSPELS  BEFORE  JUSTIl^.  65 

and  so  mysteriously  have  disappeared  that  no  sub- 
sequent trace  of  their  existence  should  be  clearly- 
discoverable.  When,  therefore,  we  find  Irenaeus, 
the  contemporary  of  Justin,  ascribing  to  the  four 
Gospels  the  same  character,  the  same  authority, 
and  the  same  authors  as  are  ascribed  by  Justin  to 
the  Memoirs  quoted  by  him,  which  were  called 
Gospels,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the 
Memoirs  of  Justin  were  the  Gospels  of  Irenaeus.'^* 

GOSPELS  BEFORE  JUSTIN". 

But  we  may  assert  more  than  this.  The  nature 
of  our  argument  goes  to  show  that  Gospels  which 
were  received  as  inspired,  when  Justin  wrote  in 
the  year  147,  and  which  were  publicly  read  in  the 
churches,  must  have  originated  long  before  his 
time.  He  could  not  have  regarded  these  books 
with  such  reverence  had  he  known  that  they  orig- 
inated twenty-five  j^ears  before,  or  had  he  not 
regarded  them  as  written  by  Apostles  and  com- 
panions of  Apostles;  indeed,  he  speaks  of  them 
as  ''Memoirs  composed  by  the  Apostles  of  Christ 
and  their  companions."  Now,  in  this  connection, 
it  must  be  remembered,  as  I  have  remarked,  that 
Justin  was  born  toward  the  close  of  the  first  cen- 
tury or  the  beginning  of  the  second;  that  he  was 
a  man  of  more  than  ordinary  education  and  had 

*  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  Cambridge,   1846,  pp. 
238-239. 

5 


66  THE  DATE  OF  OUE  GOSPELS. 

traveled  much.  All  these  considerations  serve  to 
bring  him  into  connection  with  the  times  of 
Papias,  who  wrote  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  sec- 
ond century,  and  who  records  the  testimony  of 
John,  the  presbyter,  as  follows:  '' The  presbyter 
said  that  Mark,  being  the  interpreter  of  Peter, 
carefully  wrote  down  all  that  he  retained  in  niem- 
or}^  of  the  actions  or  discourses  of  Christ;  not, 
however,  in  order,  for  he  was  not  himself  a  hearer 
or  follower  of  the  Lord,  but,  afterward,  as  I  said, 
a  companion  of  Peter,  who  taught  in  the  manner 
best  suited  to  the  instruction  of  his  hearers,  with- 
out making  a  connected  narrative  of  his  discourses 
concering  the  Lord.  Such  being  the  case,  Mark 
committed  no  error  in  thus  writing  some  things 
from  memory;  for  he  made  it  his  sole  object  not 
to  omit  an3^thing  which  he  had  heard,  and  not  to 
state  anything  falsely.^'  Of  Matthew,  Papias 
says :  ''  Matthew  wrote  the  Oracles  in  the  Hebrew 
language:  and  every  one  interpreted  them  as  he 
was  able."* 

It  seems  that  according  to  this  testimony,  al- 
though it  is  not  necessary  to  establish  my  position, 
that  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  nnd  Mark  were 
known  before  the  time  of  Papias.  Efforts  have 
been   made   to   discredit   the   statements   of   this 

*  Fatrum  Ajyostol  oorum  Opera,  Lipsiae,  1878,'part 
ii.  pp.  92-93. 


GOSPELS  BEFORE  JUSTIN.  67 

Church  Father,  because,  while  Eusebius  speaks  of 
his  learning:  he  sets  a  low  estimate  upon  his  intel- 
lectual abilities;  this,  however,  would  not  unfit 
him  for  being  a  credible  witness  as  to  a  question 
of  fact.  Nor  is  this  testimony  of  Papias  all. 
The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  which,  even  according 
to  the  extremest  German  criticism  as  represented 
by  the  Tuebingen  school  were  not  written  later 
than  110  B.  C,  but  which  must  have  been  written 
much  earlier,  allude  in  the  first  chapter  to  the 
Gospel  of  Luke.  As  regards  the  Gospel  of  John, 
modern  critics  of  the  rationalistic  school  have 
been  compelled  to  admit  that  it  was  written  some- 
where between  100  and  1^0  A.  D.,  most  of  them 
placing  it  at  120  A.  D.  But  Professor  Abbot 
mentions  the  fact  that  John  died  about  the  year 
100,  and  pointedly  asks:  '^How  could  a  spurious 
Gospel  of  a  character  so  peculiar,  so  difi'erent  from 
the  earlier  Synoptic  Gospels,  *  *  *  gain  cur- 
rency as  the  work  of  the  Apostle,  both  among 
Christians  and  the  Gnostic  heretics,  if  it  originated 
only  twenty-five  or  thirty  years  after  his  death, 
when  so  many  who  must  have  known  whether  he 
wrote  such  a  work  or  not  were  still  living  ?"t 

But,  aside,  from  the  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr, 
Papias,  and  the  author  of  the  Acts,  it  is  to  be  re- 

t  The  Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  Boston,  1880, 
p,  12. 


68  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

membered  that  tlie  first  fifty  years  of  tlie  second 
century  was  a  time  of  intellectual  dearth.  There 
were  too  many  disturbing  influences  arising  from 
persecutions  and  other  causes  to  allow  of  its  being 
a  period  of  literary  productiveness.  The  Apos- 
tolic Fathers  were  overshadowed  by  the  Apostles. 
They  felt  and  expressed  their  inferiority. 

APOSTOLIC  FATHEES. 

Clement  of  Rome,  who,  according  to  the  best 
authorities,  composed  an  epistle  to  the  Corinth- 
ians, between  93  and  97,  A.  D.,  writes  simply  as  a 
mouthpiece  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  is 
struggling  on  the  same  arena  with  that  at  Corinth, 
and  bids  them  take  up  the  epistle  of  the  Apostle 
Paul,  who  wrote  to  them,  as  he  affirms,  under  the 
inspiration  of  the  Spirit. J; 

Moreover,  Polycarp,  who  had  been  a  disciple  of 
the  Apostle  John,  in  writing  to  the  Philippians, 
disclaims  all  authority,  and  plainly  says:  "These 
things,  brethren,  I  write  to  you,  *  *  *  ^ot 
because  I  take  anything  upon  myself,  but  because 
you  have  invited  me  to  do  so.  For  neither  I  nor 
any  other  such  one,  can  come  up  to  the  wisdom 
of  the  blessed  and  glorified  Paul."|l 

We  find  similar  expressions  of  humility  in  the 
epistle  of  Ignatius  to  the  Romans,  which  was  per- 

I  Compare  vii,  xlvii. 

II  iii. 


APOSTOLIC  FATHERS.  69 

haps  written  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, where  he  makes  this  confession:  "I  do  not 
as  Peter  and  Paul  issue  commaEdments  unto  you. 
They  were  Apostles;  I  am  but  a  condemned  man."* 
And  Barnabas,  who,  according  to  many  critics, 
wrote  in  the  year  71,  A.  D.,  uses  such  expressions 
as  these:  "I  farther  beg  of  you,  as  being  one 
of  you,  and  loving  you  both  individually  and 
collectively,  more  than  my  own  soulf'f  and 
again:  "Now,  being  desirous  to  write  many 
things  to  you,  not  as  your  teacher,  but  as 
becometh  one  who  loves  you,"  etc.];  Men  who 
expressed  such  sentiments  as  these,  indicating  the 
inferiority  which  they  felt  to  the  Apostles,  could 
not  be  expected  to  fabricate  Gospels  and  assign 
them  to  Matthew  and  John,  of  the  Apostles,  and 
to  Mark  and  Luke,  respectively,  as  companions  of 
Peter  and  Paul.  But  then  it  must  be  remembered 
that  Clement  of  Rome,  Polycarp,  Ignatius,  and 
Barnabas  were  the  representative  men  of  the  early 
part  of  the  second  century.  And  if  they,  who 
were  the  leaders  of  the  church,  did  not  presume  to 
arrogate  apostolic  authority  to  themselves,  is  it  to 
be  supposed  that  there  were  others  of  lower  station 
and  less  influence  who  would  write  Gospels  and 

*  iv. 

ti. 
liv. 


"TO  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

attribute  them  to  the  Apostles  and  theh^  trusted 
companion,  and  succeed  in  securing  their  reception 
by  the  Church  at  large? 

But  we  are  not  shut  up  to  these  arguments.  Our 
positions  is  strengthened  by  a  credible  tradition. 
There  were  churches  which  were  founded  by 
Apostles.  The  Fathers  of  the  last  quarter  of  the 
second  century  affirm  that  these  churches  are  wit- 
nesses, to  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Gospels.  Fur- 
thermore the  tradition  clearly  indicates  the  four 
Evangelists  as  their  authors. 

THE  AKTE   IsTICENE  FATHERS. 

Origen,  who  was  born  about  the  year  185,  and 
as  a  youth  was  remarkable  for  his  learning,  writes: 
"  As  I  have  learned  from  tradition  concerning  the 
four  Gospels,  which  alone  are  undisputed  in  the 
Church  of  God  under  heaven,  that  the  first  in 
order  of  the  Scripture  is  that  according  to  Matthew, 
who  was  once  a  publican  but  afterward  an  Apostle 
of  Jesus  Christ.  *  *  =^  The  second  is  that  ac- 
cording to  Mark,  who  wrote  as  Peter  suggested  to 
him.  *  *  *  The  third  is  that  according  to 
Luke,  the  Gospel  commended  by  Paul.  *  *  * 
Last  of  all  that  according  to  John."§  In  his  com- 
mentary on  the  preface  to  Luke's  Gospel,  which 
begins,  "  Forasmuch  as  many  have  taken  in  hand," 

§  Eusebius'  Ecclesiastical  History,  B.  vi.  25. 


THE  ANTE  NICENR    FATHERS.  71 

etc.,  he  makes  the  following  interesting  observa- 
tion: ''  In  this  word  of  Luke's  'have  taken  in  hand' 
there  is  a  latent  accusation  of  tho.se  who  without 
the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  have  rushed  to  the 
composing  of  Gospels.  Matthew,  indeed,  and 
Mark,  and  John,  and  Luke  have  not  'taken  in 
hand'  to  write,  but  have  written  Gospels,  being 
full  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  =*'  *  *  The  church  has 
four  Gospels;  the  heresies  have  many." 

In  like  manner  Tertullian  of  Carthage  writes 
near  the  close  of  the  second  century:  ''We  lay  it 
down  in  the  first  place,  that  the  evangelic  docu- 
ment had  for  its  authors  Apostles,  to  whom  this 
office  of  promulgating  the  Gospel  was  assigned  by 
our  Lord  himself.  And  if  some  of  them  were  com- 
panions of  Apostles,  yet  they  did  not  stand  alone, 
but  were  connected  with  and  guided  by  Apostles. 
"^  ^  ^  Amongthe  Apostles,  John  and  Matthew 
form  the  faith  within  us.  Among  the  companions 
of  the  Apostles,  Luke  and  Mark  renovate  it.'"^ 

So,  too,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who,  as  has  been 
observed,  was  at  the  head  of  the  catechetical  school 
of  that  city,. writing  about  the  year  190  A.  D.,  gives 
the  tradition  as  follows: 

"  The  Gospels  containing  the  genealogies  [i.  e., 
Matthew's  and  Luke's]  were  written  first.  The 
following   providence   gave  occasion   to   that   of 

*  Adversus  Marcionem,  iv.  2. 


72  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GSOPELS. 

Mark:  While  Peter  was  publicly  preaching  the 
word  at  Rome,  and  through  the  power  of  the  Spirit 
making  known  the  Gospel,  his  hearers,  who  were 
numerous,  exhorted  Mark,  upon  the  ground  of  his 
having  accompanied  him  for  a  long  time,  and  hav- 
ing his  discourses  in  memory,  to  write  down  what 
he  had  spoken;  and  Mark,  composing  his  Gospel, 
delivered  it  to  those  who  made  the  request.  *  *  * 
In  the  last  place  John,  observing  that  the  things 
obvious  to  the  senses  had  been  clearly  set  forth  in 
those  Gospels,  being  urged  by  his  friends  and 
divinely  moved  b}^  the  Spirit,  composed  a  spiritual 

Gospel."! 

We  pass  now  across  the  Mediterranean  and  up 
the  Ehone  to  Lyons,  where,  in  178,  A.  D.,  we  find 
Irenaeus,  the  successor  of  the  aged  Pothinus,  who 
at  the  age  of  ninety  sealed  his  testimony  to  the 
religion  of  Christ  with  his  blood.  Pothinus 
was  connected  with  the  apostolic  age,  being 
born  about  the  year  87  A.  D.  Irenseus,  therefore,  as 
a  bishop  of  the  church  at  Lyons,  was  connected  by 
a  single  link  with  the  apostolic  age.  Moreover  he 
had  in  his  youth  listened  to  the  teachings  of  Poly- 
carp,  who  was  a  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John. 
He  was  therefore  doubly  connected  with  that 
period.  Hence  the  following  tradition  given  by 
him  is  very  weighty: 

f  Eusebius'  Ecclesiastical  History,  B.  vi.  14. 


THE  ANTE  ISriCENE  FATHERS.  73 

''We,"  says  Irengeus,  "have  not  received  the 
knowledge  of  the  way  of  our  salvation  by  any 
others  than  those  through  whom  the  Gospel  has 
come  down  to  us;  which  Gospel  they  first  preached, 
and  afterwards  by  the  will  of  God  transmitted  to 
us  in  writing,  that  it  might  be  the  foundation  and 
pillar  of  our  faith.  *  *  ^  Matthew,  among 
the  Hebrews,  published  a  Gospel  in  their  own  lan- 
guage, while  Peter  and  Paul  were  preaching  the 
Gospel  at  Rome  and  founding  a  church  there. 
And  after  their  departure  [from  life,]  Mark,  the 
disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter  himself,  deliv- 
ered to  us  in  writing  what  Peter  had  preached; 
and  Luke,  the  companion  of  Paul,  recorded  the 
Gospel  preached  by  him.  Afterward  John,  the 
disciple  of  the  Lord,  who  leaned  upon  his  breast, 
likewise  published  a  Gospel,  whilst  he  dwelt  at 
Ephesus  in  Asia.'"^ 

Justin  Martyr  (147  A.  D.)  undoubtedly  alludes 
to  the  same  tradition  when  he  speaks  of  "  Memoirs 
composed  by  the  Apostles  of  Christ  and  their 
companions, "t  and  Papias,  as  we  have  seen  in  the 
early  part  of  the  second  century,  mentions  Mark 
as  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  and  Matthew,  as  having 
written  the  Oracles  in  the  Hebrew  language. 

*  Contra  Haereses,  Lib.  ill.  1. 
t  Dialogue,  103. 


74  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

It  is  incredible,  when  we  consider  the  substantial 
agreement  of  these  traditions,  and  their  well-nigh 
universal  acceptation,  that  they  should  not  be 
true;  besides,  Mr.  Norton  has  argued  with  great 
force  that  it  needed  but  a  single  link  in  the  chain 
of  succession  to  connect  the  old  men  of  the  time 
of  Irenaeus  with  the  apostolic  age.  Such  being  the 
case,  the  Christians  of  his  time  could  not  be  igno- 
rant of  the  manner  in  which  the  Gospels  had 
been  regarded  by  their  predecessors:  and  in  his 
time  the  belief  in  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels 
was  established  throughout  the  Christian  com- 
munity. J 

KEYIEW. 

Let  us  in  closins:,  for  a  moment  review  the 
ground  over  which  we  have  passed.  I  have  shown 
that  notwithstanding  the  wide  diffusion  of  the 
church  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century 
our  Gospels  alone  were  universally  received  as  the 
ground  and  pillar  of  faith,  and  that  although  the 
lands  where  they  were  found  were  widely  separated 
in  race,  customs,  and  language,  still  we  have  no 

X  It  was  my  purpose  in  this  discussion  to  show  that 
our  Gospels  have  come  down  to  us  essentially  without 
interpolations.  Even  the  exclusion  of  those  few  pas- 
sages which  have  been  proved  with  more  or  less 
certainty  to  be  interpolations  does  not  affect  any  doc- 
trine. 


REVIEW.  75 

record  of  the  introduction  of  our  Gospels,  and  no 
evidence  that  they  ever  dispLaced  other  Gospels. 
And  yet,  since  the  origin  and  growth  of  Christian- 
ity presuppose  certain  historical  facts,  it  is  impos- 
sible, if  Gospels  had  already  been  adopted  by  a 
church  of  martyrs,  that  they  should  have  been 
resigned  for  new  Gospels  without  a  struggle,  of 
which  some  trace  must  have  come  down  to  us.  It 
has  further  been  shown  on  critical  grounds,  as 
well  as  from  analogy,  that  the  Gospels  mentioned 
by  Justin  Martyr  in  the  year  147  A.  D.  were  the 
same  as  those  spoken  of  by  Irenaeus  forty  years 
later;  that  Papias  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  second 
century  doubtless  alludes  to  two  of  our  Gospels; 
and  that  it  is  not  probable  that  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  who  lived  at  a  period  of  great  literary  in- 
activity, and  who  disclaimed  all  apostolic  authority, 
should  have  written  Gospels  which,  by  an  unvary- 
ing tradition,  are  ascribed  to  the  Apostles  Matthew 
and  John,  and  to  the  companions  of  Peter  and 
Paul,  namely,  Mark  and  Luke. 

I  can  only  add  that  the  arguments  given  in 
Norton's  work  on  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels 
to  which  I  am  indebted  for  the  preparation  of  this 
discourse,  seem  to  me,  in  the  light  of  previous  in- 
vestigations, to  be  in  the  main  unanswerable. 

It  is  certain  that  the  foundations  of  our  faith, 


76  THE  DATE  OF  OUR  GOSPELS. 

SO  far  as  the  Grospel  record  is  concerned,  have  not 
been  shaken,  except  among  the  uninformed,  and 
in  the  imaginations  of  those  who  wish  to  believe 
a  lie. 


